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