Bill Smith-12 wrote:
> 
> There must be other venues where this discussion can be conducted, (and
> I'd love to follow those threads) but my vote is to stick with
> Harbour-specific topics in the Harbour newsgroups.
> 

Sorry to have intruded.  I felt led to contribute per Pritpal's invitation
on the Xbase++ NG which included a link directly to this thread.  Hopefully
my other posts on this thread are helpful for Harbour to understand Xbase++
MT.

As I stated on the Xbase++ NG, it is in the xBase dialect communities
interest to converge the language implementations on the best practices of
all the players.  IMO, Harbour, xHarbour, and Xbase++ users should embrace
our shared heritage in the Clipper branch of the dBase tree.

Just as importantly, we should look to the Visual Objects/Vulcan and
Foxbase/Foxpro branches as peers with a common interest in migrating a
legacy application development language into modern environments.  

When practical, interoperability between the implementations is good.  

Otherwise, we can see our fate by looking at our COBOL and RPG predecessors
or the countless 'toy' languages depending upon how you perceive xBase.

Regards,

Rodd Graham
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/A-few-questions-about-MT-tp19555409p19683752.html
Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour

Reply via email to