> > xbase++ go to be more visual fox pro compatible because a large user > base will be given > xbase++ have added new datatypes to the Xbase++ language such as > datetime and interval. They are compatible with the VFP Timestamp typ > xbase++ have added a /fox switch to the Xbase++ compiler to accept the > "." instead of the ":" (OO syntax ). > xbase++ is working on FoxPro compatible command layer based on xbase part. > > so if we follow xbase++ we follow also fox > naturally we can follow xbase where it not break clipper compatibility > but xbase implementation seem to be still clipper compatible > also with new data type is compatibile afaik
If XPP follows FOX and we want to follow both, we will have the exact same issues, so it doesn't really change things fundamentally. Our goal is not even to copy XPP. Maybe we can learn something from how XPP is doing it, but personally I'd be happier with a better designed language than a mishmash of badly designed features from different dialects hard-wired into the core. XPP is trying to find new markets and profit, and maybe they are ready to sacrifice on the technical side. We will see how they do it, but we're certainly not obliged to follow, and our driving forces and priorities are also different. So I'm not saying FoxPro compatibility isn't to be considered, ever, but it's not top priority and we should keep sticking to our development model and rules, try the best solutions within this frame. Our goal is to create a sleek and stable language based on the Clipper heritage, while keeping compatibility. IMO we should rather aim to get Harbour on par with Python, PHP as far as their versatility and extendibility goes, and go beyond that by keeping what we already have. Brgds, Viktor
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
