At 06:36 2017-02-21, "Fernando D. Bozzo" fdbozzo@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
2017-02-21 19:26 GMT+01:00 Gene Wirchenko genew@telus.net:
At 06:36 2017-02-21, "Fernando D. Bozzo" fdbozzo@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. Itis 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
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 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. How do you program and know what parameters are needed t pass to a method? with intellisense off? That's just throwing many years of usabillity and tooling for the sake of being sure...
- 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 veryoccasionally. 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 theabove 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 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...
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html ---
-
Fernando D. Bozzo -
Gene Wirchenko