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
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]
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.
As I said initially, with the Arago Quicksilver compiler for dbXL, you got one self-contained executable. No separate runtime file, no requirement for any dll dependencies like you have with VFP.
It would take 15-20 minutes to compile a moderate-sized project on a 386 40 MHz machine.
Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org
Wow, 15-20 min sounds Painful!
That being said, of course, when I would render 3D Images, 15-20 min for a single image is NOT out of the Ordinary!
-K-
On 12/19/2016 8:23 PM, Ken Dibble wrote:
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.
As I said initially, with the Arago Quicksilver compiler for dbXL, you got one self-contained executable. No separate runtime file, no requirement for any dll dependencies like you have with VFP.
It would take 15-20 minutes to compile a moderate-sized project on a 386 40 MHz machine.
Ken Dibble www.stic-cil.org
[excessive quoting removed by server]
IBM System 360 Assembler we had three sizes of compiles (well assembles) - 'fag', 'coffee', and 'pub' <g> fwiw IBM also used 2-byte dates - 7 bits for year and 9 bits for day-of-year.
On 20-Dec-2016 7:21 AM, Ken Dibble wrote:
Wow, 15-20 min sounds Painful!
It was longer on the 286. On the 386 I could time it to go with my coffee breaks. *L*
Ken
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Andy - that's pretty funny! U Brit's w/Ur funny terms. I know Fag is a Cig - but, here in the USA - its used completely differently. However, would you REALLY Actually go out to a Pub while compiling???
Regards, Kurt Wendt Senior Systems Analyst
Tel. +1-212-747-9100 www.GlobeTax.com
-----Original Message----- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of AndyHC Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 2:04 AM To: profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: Re: [NF] Arago
IBM System 360 Assembler we had three sizes of compiles (well assembles) - 'fag', 'coffee', and 'pub' <g> fwiw IBM also used 2-byte dates - 7 bits for year and 9 bits for day-of-year.
On 20-Dec-2016 7:21 AM, Ken Dibble wrote:
Wow, 15-20 min sounds Painful!
It was longer on the 286. On the 386 I could time it to go with my coffee breaks. *L*
Ken
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Agreed Alan.
I was even worse off when I started because you could guarantee that all your punched cards be dropped on the twice daily dash to the computing lab for their compilation slots and have to be hurriedly re-assembled after which there was always one out of order and your program compilation run was rejected.
Then there was paper tape which was not much better when the furry holes were out of alignment with the reader resulting in yet another rejection and/or quick additions/amendments via an 80 column hand punch!!!
I still remember some of the sequences to this day.
Oh happy days!.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Alan Bourke Sent: 20 December 2016 15:34 To: profox@leafe.com; profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: Re: [NF] Arago
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, at 03:26 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:
would you REALLY Actually go out to a Pub while compiling???
15 - 20 minutes is plenty of time for a swift half and a pork pie.
Here we go, "Oh, sure, you kids had compilers and cards and paper tape. We had to wire our logic directly onto the circuit boards."
http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-09-08
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Dave Crozier DaveC@flexipol.co.uk wrote:
Agreed Alan.
I was even worse off when I started because you could guarantee that all your punched cards be dropped on the twice daily dash to the computing lab for their compilation slots and have to be hurriedly re-assembled after which there was always one out of order and your program compilation run was rejected.
Then there was paper tape which was not much better when the furry holes were out of alignment with the reader resulting in yet another rejection and/or quick additions/amendments via an 80 column hand punch!!!
I still remember some of the sequences to this day.
Oh happy days!.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Alan Bourke Sent: 20 December 2016 15:34 To: profox@leafe.com; profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: Re: [NF] Arago
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, at 03:26 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:
would you REALLY Actually go out to a Pub while compiling???
15 - 20 minutes is plenty of time for a swift half and a pork pie.
-- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Been there, done that. (punch cards (80 and 96 column), paper tape, and wiring boards)
Fred
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Ted Roche tedroche@gmail.com wrote:
Here we go, "Oh, sure, you kids had compilers and cards and paper tape. We had to wire our logic directly onto the circuit boards."
http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-09-08
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Dave Crozier DaveC@flexipol.co.uk wrote:
Agreed Alan.
I was even worse off when I started because you could guarantee that all
your punched cards be dropped on the twice daily dash to the computing lab for their compilation slots and have to be hurriedly re-assembled after which there was always one out of order and your program compilation run was rejected.
Then there was paper tape which was not much better when the furry holes
were out of alignment with the reader resulting in yet another rejection and/or quick additions/amendments via an 80 column hand punch!!!
I still remember some of the sequences to this day.
Oh happy days!.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Alan Bourke Sent: 20 December 2016 15:34 To: profox@leafe.com; profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: Re: [NF] Arago
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, at 03:26 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:
would you REALLY Actually go out to a Pub while compiling???
15 - 20 minutes is plenty of time for a swift half and a pork pie.
-- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
[excessive quoting removed by server]
Well that's actually true, Assembly Language course at Lodge Rd London, if you wanted your source code 'interpreted' (printed above the punch holes) then you had to learn how to plug-wire the circuit board of the interpreter to read/feed-back the character punch codes. And I do remember seeing an IBM programmer (a pretty blonde as I recall) in tears because she had dropped her box of source code cards down two flights of stairs (a box was 2,000 cards). If there was cricket on at Lords you could watch it from the restaurant.
On 20-Dec-2016 10:33 PM, Ted Roche wrote:
Here we go, "Oh, sure, you kids had compilers and cards and paper tape. We had to wire our logic directly onto the circuit boards."
http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-09-08
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Dave Crozier DaveC@flexipol.co.uk wrote:
Agreed Alan.
I was even worse off when I started because you could guarantee that all your punched cards be dropped on the twice daily dash to the computing lab for their compilation slots and have to be hurriedly re-assembled after which there was always one out of order and your program compilation run was rejected.
Then there was paper tape which was not much better when the furry holes were out of alignment with the reader resulting in yet another rejection and/or quick additions/amendments via an 80 column hand punch!!!
I still remember some of the sequences to this day.
Oh happy days!.
Dave
-----Original Message----- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Alan Bourke Sent: 20 December 2016 15:34 To: profox@leafe.com; profoxtech@leafe.com Subject: Re: [NF] Arago
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, at 03:26 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:
would you REALLY Actually go out to a Pub while compiling???
15 - 20 minutes is plenty of time for a swift half and a pork pie.
-- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
[excessive quoting removed by server]
... and the pub was next door but one... won a pint off the IBM SE for the first working macro (IBM MacroAssenbler!)
On 20-Dec-2016 9:04 PM, Alan Bourke wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, at 03:26 PM, Kurt Wendt wrote:
would you REALLY Actually go out to a Pub while compiling???
15 - 20 minutes is plenty of time for a swift half and a pork pie.
When I was in college doing VMS Pascal on a VAX 11/780 minicomputer, it could easily take 15 or 20 minutes to compile a program if there were 150 other people all doing the same thing. A good grounding in getting it right first time.
I read the product name and in my mind I make it Argo and then I remember the line "Argo screw yourself."
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Alan Bourke alanpbourke@fastmail.fm wrote:
When I was in college doing VMS Pascal on a VAX 11/780 minicomputer, it could easily take 15 or 20 minutes to compile a program if there were 150 other people all doing the same thing. A good grounding in getting it right first time.
-- Alan Bourke alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
[excessive quoting removed by server]
On 2016-12-19 20:23, Ken Dibble wrote:
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.
As I said initially, with the Arago Quicksilver compiler for dbXL, you got one self-contained executable. No separate runtime file, no requirement for any dll dependencies like you have with VFP.
It would take 15-20 minutes to compile a moderate-sized project on a 386 40 MHz machine.
I recall getting dinged for VFP's runtimes back in the late 90s/early 2000s. Ridiculous, especially given where we are today.