ProFox February 2017

profox@leafe.com

43 participants
47 discussions

Re: Diffing VCXs
by Gene Wirchenko 22 Feb '17

22 Feb '17

At 11:06 2017-02-21, "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo(a)gmail.com> wrote: >2017-02-21 19:26 GMT+01:00 Gene Wirchenko <genew(a)telus.net>: > > > At 06:36 2017-02-21, "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> The only adventage of using VCXs over PRGs is that: > >> - Descriptions of the methods and properties are shown by intellisense > >> when > >> you scroll them while using an instantiated class, which is not possible > >> with PRGs, except PRG-COM classes instantiated from the registered Windows > >> object. > > No loss for me. IMHO, Intellisense is too close to copy-paste. It > > is too easy to get something that looks reasonable yet might not be right. > > If you are not sure, look it up. > >You compare Intellisense with copy-paste?? o_O Yes. >About always looking at the code.... yes, you can continue programming like >at the beginning of the pre-PC era, but now TV is in color, do you know?... I would like to compliment you on your excellent manners. Please show some so that I might do so. >I mean, productive tools are exactly for that: to be more productive with >less effort, so if you carefully name methods and set usefull tooltips for >intellisense, the idea is that you are more productive because you don't >need to look at the code. Yes, that is what they are for. So do they do the job? Some people have been caught by Intellisense with set path to to They type a "to", and Intellisense also adds one in. Too many automatic tools screw things up, and they often do it in a way that a person would not so you do not know what to look for. I once had my resume messed up by Word. I was in a hurry and did not turn off auto-correct (What a misnomer!) Word "corrected" my E-mail address for me. I just happened to see a flash and discovered it. If I had not seen the flash, my application would have gone out with an incorrect E-mail address. Since I program, I do look at the code. >How do you program and know what parameters are needed t pass to a method? If I do not know, I look it up. My procedures tend to have a description of each parameter and what the method does. >with intellisense off? That's just throwing many years of usabillity and >tooling for the sake of being sure... Sure. I value being sure that I got something right. Anything getting in the way of that is anti-usability. [snip] > > I code almost only with .prg files (so I do not know what most of the > > above means). The only exception was setting printer orientation for which > > I had to create two .frt files. >I can understand it with classes, but what do you do with forms, labels, >reports, menus, ...? I create them in code. > > I do not know what most of the above means > >Well, I'm talking about PRGs, so If you use them then should know what is a >Session class, a batch replace a COM object and a merge... I do not use them. I coded the app before that got added. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko

1 0

RE: Scope Resolution ::
by Gene Wirchenko 21 Feb '17

21 Feb '17

At 23:36 2017-02-15, mbsoftwaresolutions(a)mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote: >On 2017-02-14 17:29, Gene Wirchenko wrote: >>At 01:54 2017-02-14, Dave Crozier <DaveC(a)Flexipol.co.uk> wrote: >>>Mike, >>>It is extremely hands in certain circumstances and can save you >>>loads of extra programming work. However like yourself I tend to >>>forget about it (as opposed to never knowing about it!!) and only >>>after the event do I realise I could have made life easier for myself!! >> I might have used it the odd time, but dodefault() does it for me. >but this use of the Scope Resolution operator allowed me to jump 2 >levels in the OOP hierarchy, Gene. DODEFAULT(x,y) would have ran >the method 1 above, and that's not what I needed. Like I said, at >first, it didn't seem very OOP to me, but revisiting it, I suppose it is. It is not very OOP. I do not know enough about your case to judge whether I would do that, too, but I rather doubt it. It has the smell of a kludge, but sometimes, kludges are necessary. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko

5 5

Re: Diffing VCXs
by Gene Wirchenko 21 Feb '17

21 Feb '17

At 06:36 2017-02-21, "Fernando D. Bozzo" <fdbozzo(a)gmail.com> wrote: >The only adventage of using VCXs over PRGs is that: >- Descriptions of the methods and properties are shown by intellisense when >you scroll them while using an instantiated class, which is not possible >with PRGs, except PRG-COM classes instantiated from the registered Windows >object. No loss for me. IMHO, Intellisense is too close to copy-paste. It is too easy to get something that looks reasonable yet might not be right. If you are not sure, look it up. >- Can be created (NewObject) from external exes/apps (with PRGs just the >main program with SET PROCEDURE) > >On the other side, PRGs have plenty of adventages over VCX: >- The text never gets corrupted Almost never gets corrupted. I have had minor text corruption very occasionally. It is much easier to correct though. >- You can define the type of procs/funcs parameters and their returned >values (useful for COM) >- Better for merging in a SCM/DVCS tool >- It is the only way to use the Session class >- Easier for bach-replacing between a bunch of files (you can do that with >the tx2 versions generated by FoxBin2Prg, but then you need to regenarate >the binaries, which is an extra step) I code almost only with .prg files (so I do not know what most of the above means). The only exception was setting printer orientation for which I had to create two .frt files. [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko

2 1

Re: Scope Resolution ::
by Gene Wirchenko 21 Feb '17

21 Feb '17

At 01:56 2017-02-21, AndyHC <andy(a)hawthorncottage.com> wrote: >... the Scope Resolution operator ...is not very OOP. It has the >smell of a kludge... > >why? javascript** is super oopy/functional and you can 'resolve' >right back to the god-object - and 'extend' it! > >** I am on record as saying it is the very worst language ever - but >I acknowledge I've been trampled in the rush to make it ubiquitous. I hope you are joking. I can not afford an assassin. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko

1 0

Diffing VCXs
by Paul Newton 21 Feb '17

21 Feb '17

Hi all I came across this in response to a message posted by Dominic Burford Hi Dominic, you can find an even more sophisticated version of SCCTEXT.prg on the ProLib FTP archives: ftp://ftp.prolib.de/public/vfp/mwscctext.prg This is an adopted version from Markus Winhard (hence the "mw"), which has all the changes from Mark Wilden plus several other enhancements, like a much improved speed, a correct sorting of classes and methods, and more robust working. However the FTP link does not work (it requires login credentials). However a bit of searching came up with http://www.dfpug.de/Forum/catbody.afp?!_4U70VHTXU&nsec=10&cname=mwscctext.z… Unfortunately the Download button on that page will not allow me to save the zip file. Any ideas/suggestions? Paul

10 29

[NF] Anti-Virus Programs
by John Weller 21 Feb '17

21 Feb '17

I have been asked to give a talk to a local pensioner's organisation on internet security. One of the points I will make is that you need a good anti-virus. I have used M$ Security Essentials and now Windows Defender on Win 10 for some years without any problems, largely as a result of recommendations here. In a recent magazine article in UK they were saying that Defender is not very good only picking up 75% of viruses in a test. They were advocating Kaspersky; the fact that they were offering it at a discount but were undoubtedly getting a cut may have influenced their decision. What anti-virus are you using? Do you still recommend Defender? Any thoughts or comments? I will be recommending one to the pensioners so will be going for one of the free ones. Thanks John John Weller 01380 723235 07976 393631

11 12

RE: Copy Excel worksheet to another workbook
by Gene Wirchenko 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

At 10:22 2017-02-17, Richard Kaye <rkaye(a)invaluable.com> wrote: >I prefer to think of it as the ability to interactively test without >having to engage in some sort of code/compile/debug/repeat cycle. If >that's the definition of a kludge then I guess the answer is yes. Or >you could go with Ted's more elegantly stated reply. I think your definition is too elegant to be a good definition for "kludge". <BEG> (During my computing degree, in one English class, we were required to write up and present a technical term. My classmates chose such things as "cookie". I picked "kludge".) Well, when you have to experiment, it often is somewhat of a kludge. Yes, I do like being able to do that quickly (i.e. without a compile and link). I still use GW-BASIC for that on some problems. You can clean up later, but sometimes, later is not needed, especially for one-offs. >Happy Friday to you, too, Gene. :-) Thank you. [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko

1 0

Copy Excel worksheet to another workbook
by Paul Newton 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

Hi all I want to use automation to copy the active worksheet into another workbook (as an additional worksheet) I believe I need something like this ActiveSheet.Copy After:=Workbooks("YourWorkbookName.xls"). Sheets("Sheet3") But I can't find how to send the correct way to do it in VFP o = CreateObject("Excel.Application") o.Visible = .t. o.Workbooks.Open("C:\O32\OperaNext\Opera32\DEMODATA\SQSLACL.XLS") o.ActiveSheet.Copy(What to put here?) Any help would be much appreciated Paul Newton

8 18

RE: Copy Excel worksheet to another workbook
by Gene Wirchenko 17 Feb '17

17 Feb '17

At 04:14 2017-02-17, Richard Kaye <rkaye(a)invaluable.com> wrote: >You're welcome, Paul. > >I just played around in the command window with the Excel object til >it worked. The beauty and power of VFP... ... is in kludging? Happy Friday. [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko

3 2

[OT] Non-Natives' English (was: Re: SQL Backend Question - Part Deux)
by Gene Wirchenko 16 Feb '17

16 Feb '17

At 00:30 2017-02-10, Thierry Nivelet <tnivelet(a)foxincloud.com> wrote: >A secret you may not be aware of: it takes a non-native writer far >more than twice as much time to write the same idea. A secret you may not be aware of: I wish more native writers took more time to write the same idea. Yes, there are non-native English users who massacre the language, but many write far better than a lot of native users. I saw this in university where I would hear complaints from fellow students about why should they have to take English, that they already know it. I would then read some of their written work. Such often had many errors and a lack of clarity, but the author thought it was just fine. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko

2 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

ProFox February 2017