> > For me WP should be only a place where to say that Harbour exist and
what it is while the "details and comparisons" should be elsewhere. > > I disagree although the article need be cleaned up. I bring a lot things from Clipper and xHarbour article to be polished. It's a matter of balance and you can contribute on article It is not mine. Look at another programming languages articles about details. > I understand that expression like "fast", "modern" or "unlike Java" > need to be proved and that a sentence like "Most softwares originally > writen to run on Xbase++, Flagship, FoxPro, xHarbour and others > dialects can be compiled with Harbor with some adaptation." can be > "critical". I've used FoxPro in the past and I can say that "some > adaption" is not the term I'd use for a conversion :) > I agree, It is not my text. Feel free to change it. You can discuss about that on WP too. Some WP editors don't read this mailing list. > > Instead you could summarize the introduction leaving only the facts like: > ... > Harbour is an open source computer programming language. The compiler, > the runtime and the support libraries are written in Ansi C and > Harbour itself so they can be built on every operating system that has > a compatible C compiler. Harbour is known to work under Microsoft > Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, BSD, Windows CE, OS/2 Ecomstation, > Haiku/BeOS. > > The open source Harbour license[1] is similar to the GNU General > Public License, with an exception supporting commercial applications, > so commercial applications can be produced with Harbour and > distributed. > ... > > Good. > Concepts like "multiple graphic terminals" or "replaceable database > driver" are difficult to explain in few sentences and can be even > misleading so I would remove them. > > In general I think you could present Harbour as a language by itself > instead of a Clipper clone. The vast majority of developers don't know > what Clipper is so references to it are almost useless. > It's not my text but I think this is need be better written. We can't hide this information too. > Then you could add some code examples trying to make the code as clean > as possible starting with: > > function main() > outstd( "Hello World" ) > return > > I would avoid: > > - mention macro > - things like ? or QOut > - terms like procedure or routine > - show both begin sequence and try catch syntax > - using DO <x> > - show DO CASE > > In general, it's my intent reduce this. It's first attempt to improve the article. Look xHarbour article to understand why it's ugly. Remember I am the first to criticize my edits ;-) And look to old Harbour's article. My main goal is done: shaking the list about the subject. Anyway, feel free to change the article. Personally I code in C style. A typical Clipper programmer don't recognize my code as xBase program. Unfortunately we still need "sell" Harbour to Clipper programmer. I repeat, this view is going against my personal preference but I think it is necessary comparing old (dBase) style to new (Harbour) style. Thanks to your suggestions. []'s Maniero
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
