I'm not certain, Gene. The last paragraph of the review refers to Arago's "true .EXE compiler," implying that FoxPro's wasn't. But the only distinction the review actually gives is that Arago's compiled file sizes were substantially smaller than FoxPro's.
Coincidentally enough, the same issue of PC Magazine has a comparative review of five Xbase development systems, including FoxPro 2.0, Clipper, and dBASE III/VI. FoxPro won hands down! From the Google Books left menu, search for "Xbase Development Systems" in the same issue. Makes for very nostalgia-inducing reading.
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Gene Wirchenko Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:09 PM To: profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: RE: [NF] Arago
At 10:59 2016-12-19, "Michael Glassman" MHGlassman@PioneerDrama.com wrote:
Here's a PC Magazine review from 1992, with comparisons to FoxPro 2.0, which was released one year earlier. FoxPro was faster, but it lacked such a complete compiler.
So what made its compiler more complete?
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[excessive quoting removed by server]