Discussion:
forum for harbour 2.0 ?
(too old to reply)
fatfat
2011-04-29 04:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

where is the right place for starting 'Hello World' program from harbour 2.0
windows /bcc55 ?

Thanks
Massimo Belgrano
2011-04-29 09:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Harbour use list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-users

Harbour developer mailing list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-devel

Harbour tutorial is available at:
http://www.gruppoeratostene.com/harbour/harbour-tutorials.htm

I suggest download Harbour 2.1 Nightly binary ready to be installed from
https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/files/binaries-windows/nightly/harbour-nightly-win.exe/download
add to your path c:\hb21\bin
cd \hb21\tests
hbmk2 hello -run
You have Generate hello.exe and executed it

bcc is not realiable for harbour because is old and not tested from active harbour developer, please try mingw included in niglty
FabioNery
2011-04-29 11:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Hi Massimo,

One suggest: You could to include in nightly binary the mingw for wince
(c:\hb21\mingwarm) ...

[]Žs
FabioNery
Post by Massimo Belgrano
Harbour use list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-users
Harbour developer mailing list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-devel
http://www.gruppoeratostene.com/harbour/harbour-tutorials.htm
I suggest download Harbour 2.1 Nightly binary ready to be installed from
https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/files/binaries-windows/nightly/harbour-nightly-win.exe/download
add to your path c:\hb21\bin
cd \hb21\tests
hbmk2 hello -run
You have Generate hello.exe and executed it
bcc is not realiable for harbour because is old and not tested from active
harbour developer, please try mingw included in niglty
fatfat
2011-04-29 15:29:29 UTC
Permalink
would miniw for wince support wp7 ?

Thanks

"FabioNery" 在郵件張貼內容主旨 ipe8k3$rtt$***@dont-email.me 中撰寫...

Hi Massimo,

One suggest: You could to include in nightly binary the mingw for wince
(c:\hb21\mingwarm) ...

[]愀
FabioNery
Post by Massimo Belgrano
Harbour use list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-users
Harbour developer mailing list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-devel
http://www.gruppoeratostene.com/harbour/harbour-tutorials.htm
I suggest download Harbour 2.1 Nightly binary ready to be installed from
https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/files/binaries-windows/nightly/harbour-nightly-win.exe/download
add to your path c:\hb21\bin
cd \hb21\tests
hbmk2 hello -run
You have Generate hello.exe and executed it
bcc is not realiable for harbour because is old and not tested from active
harbour developer, please try mingw included in niglty
dlzc
2011-04-29 17:22:04 UTC
Permalink
would [mingw] for wince support wp7 ?
(fatfat: I'd assume you'd have different instances of minGW, or flags
to tell it what OS / processor to generate code for.)

And now we see what the "Swiss Army Knife" approach presents in terms
of challenges to the newbie.

This was only part of the hurdle I faced when my need arose. Harbour
was stagnant, cold, and unfriendly at that time. And they even now
assume that everyone that walks in the door is well versed in the
lingo, and knows where to go and what to do. I personally will not
bother with something that does not present a Windows interface (non-
console) for doing my job.

During WWII, the Germans had lots and lots of really brilliant,
specialty weapons, just few in instantiations. And they were defeated
by those that could produce lots and lots of fairly generic weapons
(having few natural resources had a lot to do with that, which of
course was at the center of the war in the first place).

So we have Harbour with lots and lots of specialty features, newly
invigorated with how things "should" be run / done. And we have Micro
$haft and Java gleaning away the "new recruits", with reams and reams
of documentation.

Rather than sticking a knife in the back of a small rival like
xHarbour, posting little posts about how wonderful Harbour is in
comparison to xHarbour, wouldn't it be wonderful if someone had their
eye on the ball?

Why is neither in distro with any version of Linux? I scan what is
available with Ubuntu, which is *everywhere*, nothing.

We get better, when we stop thinking small.

As to xHarbour being an eXtended Harbour, it appears this is no longer
true. Intentionally, decisions have been made both not to update the
core (by actually basing on Harbour *today*) as claimed^, nor to come
to agreement with the one that is updating Harbour on ways / means.
Dynamic tension can carry us all forward, but when xHarbour is left
behind, and has been successfully put out of business, Harbour still
cannot swallow every other language out there, and is in front of NO
student. So we have a few hundred converts, and will die in 20 years
as we do.

Whatever. My opinions are my own. Nothing anyone has to fix.

David A. Smith

^ eXtended Harbour *old* version doesn't have the same ring, nor the
same connotation.
Ella-Ilona Stern
2011-04-29 18:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Hello,
Post by dlzc
would [mingw] for wince support wp7 ?
(fatfat: I'd assume you'd have different instances of minGW, or flags
to tell it what OS / processor to generate code for.)
And now we see what the "Swiss Army Knife" approach presents in terms
of challenges to the newbie.
This was only part of the hurdle I faced when my need arose. Harbour
was stagnant, cold, and unfriendly at that time.  And they even now
assume that everyone that walks in the door is well versed in the
lingo, and knows where to go and what to do.  I personally will not
bother with something that does not present a Windows interface (non-
console) for doing my job.
During WWII, the Germans had lots and lots of really brilliant,
specialty weapons, just few in instantiations.  And they were defeated
by those that could produce lots and lots of fairly generic weapons
(having few natural resources had a lot to do with that, which of
course was at the center of the war in the first place).
So we have Harbour with lots and lots of specialty features, newly
invigorated with how things "should" be run / done.  And we have Micro
$haft and Java gleaning away the "new recruits", with reams and reams
of documentation.
Rather than sticking a knife in the back of a small rival like
xHarbour, posting little posts about how wonderful Harbour is in
comparison to xHarbour, wouldn't it be wonderful if someone had their
eye on the ball?
Why is neither in distro with any version of Linux?  I scan what is
available with Ubuntu, which is *everywhere*, nothing.
We get better, when we stop thinking small.
As to xHarbour being an eXtended Harbour, it appears this is no longer
true.  Intentionally, decisions have been made both not to update the
core (by actually basing on Harbour *today*) as claimed^, nor to come
to agreement with the one that is updating Harbour on ways / means.
Dynamic tension can carry us all forward, but when xHarbour is left
behind, and has been successfully put out of business, Harbour still
cannot swallow every other language out there, and is in front of NO
student.  So we have a few hundred converts, and will die in 20 years
as we do.
Whatever.  My opinions are my own.  Nothing anyone has to fix.
David A. Smith
^ eXtended Harbour *old* version doesn't have the same ring, nor the
same connotation.
Thank you for sharing your opinion :-)

The "model 500" phone has been the unique model about three decades -
nowadays we have hundreds of models.

In the same manner the "IBM-compatible" computer architecture has been
to most popular - nowadays we have dozens of architectures and lots of
specialized OS-es for them.
As the IT technology is growing, more and more specialized softwares
will appear.


In my very personal opinion at pesent a programming language needs to
focus mainly on exploiting efficiently the resources offered by the
OS, on which is running, instead of duplicating special-purpose
libraries. Small and medium groups of developers ( or companies ) can
keep walking by finding new ways of using the technologies offered by
the big companies.



Ella
dlzc
2011-04-30 17:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Qatan
Hello,
Post by dlzc
would [mingw] for wince support wp7 ?
(fatfat: I'd assume you'd have different instances of minGW, or flags
to tell it what OS / processor to generate code for.)
And now we see what the "Swiss Army Knife" approach presents in terms
of challenges to the newbie.
This was only part of the hurdle I faced when my need
arose. Harbour was stagnant, cold, and unfriendly at that
time.  And they even now assume that everyone that
walks in the door is well versed in the lingo, and knows
where to go and what to do.  I personally will not bother
with something that does not present a Windows interface
(non- console) for doing my job.
During WWII, the Germans had lots and lots of really
brilliant, specialty weapons, just few in instantiations.
 And they were defeated by those that could produce lots
and lots of fairly generic weapons (having few natural
resources had a lot to do with that, which of course was
at the center of the war in the first place).
So we have Harbour with lots and lots of specialty features,
newly invigorated with how things "should" be run / done.
 And we have Micro$haft and Java gleaning away the "new
recruits", with reams and reams of documentation.
Rather than sticking a knife in the back of a small rival like
xHarbour, posting little posts about how wonderful Harbour
is in comparison to xHarbour, wouldn't it be wonderful if
someone had their eye on the ball?
Why is neither in distro with any version of Linux?  I scan
what is available with Ubuntu, which is *everywhere*, nothing.
We get better, when we stop thinking small.
As to xHarbour being an eXtended Harbour, it appears this
is no longer true.  Intentionally, decisions have been made
both not to update the core (by actually basing on Harbour
*today*) as claimed^, nor to come to agreement with the one
that is updating Harbour on ways / means. Dynamic tension
can carry us all forward, but when xHarbour is left behind, and
has been successfully put out of business, Harbour still
cannot swallow every other language out there, and is in front
of NO student.  So we have a few hundred converts, and will
die in 20 years as we do.
Whatever.  My opinions are my own.  Nothing anyone has to
fix.
^ eXtended Harbour *old* version doesn't have the same ring,
nor the same connotation.
Thank you for sharing your opinion :-)
The "model 500" phone has been the unique model about three
decades - nowadays we have hundreds of models.
In the same manner the "IBM-compatible" computer architecture
has been to most popular - nowadays we have dozens of
architectures and lots of specialized OS-es for them. As the IT
technology is growing, more and more specialized softwares
will appear.
But the understandable operator interface, one that does not require
operator re-training, is the one that will "win".
Post by Qatan
In my very personal opinion at [present] a programming
language needs to focus mainly on exploiting efficiently the
resources offered by the OS, on which is running, instead of
duplicating special-purpose libraries.
I see that. But a language should also bridge across OS's, and leave
the "efficiently exploiting resources" as a "voluntary tweak". Not a
required exercise. Keep in mind, the "duplicating special-purpose
libraries" is what allowed some current Clipper users (or those that
inherited Clipper code-bases for maintenance) to continue growing with
us. All "four or five" of them. ;>)
Post by Qatan
Small and medium groups of developers ( or companies )
can keep walking by finding new ways of using the
technologies offered by the big companies.
Are they of no interest? Are we not interested in growing the
community?

I hope I have not attacked you, you were (and always are) gracious.

David A. Smith
Ella-Ilona Stern
2011-04-30 18:37:33 UTC
Permalink
David,
Post by dlzc
Post by Ella-Ilona Stern
Thank you for sharing your opinion :-)
The "model 500" phone has been the unique model about three
decades - nowadays we have hundreds of models.
In the same manner the "IBM-compatible" computer architecture
has been to most popular - nowadays we have dozens of
architectures and lots of specialized OS-es for them.  As the IT
technology is growing, more and more specialized softwares
will appear.
But the understandable operator interface, one that does not require
operator re-training, is the one that will "win".
IMHO the reality around us has changed, not only the OS-es.

Many-many executove positions have been "externalized" to people
working from home and / or traveling - this process is cutting down
costs, and only in the industry, hospitals and similar special places
are needed on-site technicians - these people represent no more than
10% of the active population in a country.

The other folks want to pay for mobile devices, thinkpads, softwares
supporting real gestures - not just replacing the mouse port event.

The "old iron" running Winfows 9X or 2000 will crash in the next 2-4
years, and the "new iron" has been designed to support the new OS
architecture and devices.
Post by dlzc
Post by Ella-Ilona Stern
In my very personal opinion at [present] a programming
language needs to focus mainly on exploiting efficiently the
resources offered by the OS, on which is running, instead of
duplicating special-purpose libraries.
I see that.  But a language should also bridge across OS's, and leave
the "efficiently exploiting resources" as a "voluntary tweak".  Not a
required exercise.  Keep in mind, the "duplicating special-purpose
libraries" is what allowed some current Clipper users (or those that
inherited Clipper code-bases for maintenance) to continue growing with
us.  All "four or five" of them.  ;>)
Some of us will write web server-side scripts deserving mobile
devices, others will write games for Android, others queries for a
Nokia communicating with an enterprise server, others will program
dish-wasing machines and /or optimizing heating systems of different
buildings...

IMHO Clipper was designed to ease up the process of writing new
applications.
Post by dlzc
Post by Ella-Ilona Stern
Small and medium groups of developers ( or companies )
can keep walking by finding new ways of using the
technologies offered by the big companies.
Are they of no interest?  Are we not interested in growing the
community?
Java / Oracle are facing with their own limitations; .Net is not
mature enough for commercial redistributables.
Ubuntu exists due to the serious investments pumped into one of the
many Debian projects.

There is a Romanian saying: a single hour can bring what a year hasn't
brought...
Post by dlzc
I hope I have not attacked you, you were (and always are) gracious.
It's great to share ideas with people who are thinking out of the
box :-)


Ella
Post by dlzc
David A. Smith- Ascundeţi textul citat -
- Afişare text în citat -
Klas Engwall
2011-04-29 21:34:53 UTC
Permalink
David,
Post by dlzc
would [mingw] for wince support wp7 ?
(fatfat: I'd assume you'd have different instances of minGW, or flags
to tell it what OS / processor to generate code for.)
To Fatfat: As far as I understand, CygWin would be required to build for WinCE.
It has been discussed in the Harbour mailing lists recently. Please refer to
those resources rather than going into more detailed questions here.
Post by dlzc
And now we see what the "Swiss Army Knife" approach presents in terms
of challenges to the newbie.
Well, all the different tools of the Swiss Army Knife need not be used for those
who only want to comple their applications for Windows. The Harbour nightly
build, mentioned by Massimo earlier in this thread, is extremely simple to use.
Only the path of the Harbour build tool hbmk2 and the path of the C compiler
have to be specified, the rest is taken care of automatically. Much easier to
set up than xHarbour, actually.
Post by dlzc
This was only part of the hurdle I faced when my need arose. Harbour
was stagnant, cold, and unfriendly at that time. And they even now
assume that everyone that walks in the door is well versed in the
lingo, and knows where to go and what to do. I personally will not
bother with something that does not present a Windows interface (non-
console) for doing my job.
That of course disqualifies xharbour.org :-) but Harbour now has the Qt wrappers
very near completion, so Harbour is qualified by your definition, at least "real
soon now".
Post by dlzc
Rather than sticking a knife in the back of a small rival like
xHarbour, posting little posts about how wonderful Harbour is in
comparison to xHarbour, wouldn't it be wonderful if someone had their
eye on the ball?
Who is sticking knives in the small rival? I mentioned the other day that those
who need Harbour functionality can find that in Harbour rather than hoping that
someone will implement those things in xHarbour. Massimo meant to recommend (at
least I think he did) in a previous thread a couple of days ago that those who
are happy witn xHarbour stay with it (but slipped slightly on the keyboard).
Besides that, a couple of xHarbour users recently looked at Harbour and
expressed their liking of the product. And URLS of Harbour resources have been
posted in reply to direct questions. I really see no knives.

In fact, I would rather discuss xHarbour matters here and Harbour matters on the
Harbour mailing lists, but straight questions require straight answers.
Post by dlzc
Why is neither in distro with any version of Linux? I scan what is
available with Ubuntu, which is *everywhere*, nothing.
That has been discussed recently on the Harbour developer list, and as far as I
could understand there will be attempts to get Harbour into at least some of the
distros after the next stable release. I have no answers regarding xHarbour. Is
there a working Linux version?
Post by dlzc
We get better, when we stop thinking small.
As to xHarbour being an eXtended Harbour, it appears this is no longer
true. Intentionally, decisions have been made both not to update the
core (by actually basing on Harbour *today*) as claimed^, nor to come
to agreement with the one that is updating Harbour on ways / means.
Dynamic tension can carry us all forward, but when xHarbour is left
behind, and has been successfully put out of business, Harbour still
cannot swallow every other language out there,
Probably true, and the same goes for every other existing Clipper-based
development system. Clipper itself was a niche product, and most Clipper users
went in other directions in the nineties - Delphi, C++, Java, etc, etc. A few
of us remain and are now spread even thinner over the existing "clones".
Personally I still maintain a few 16-bit Clipper applications, I have my rather
large EDI converter and a bunch of Excel related utilities written in xHarbour,
and I do my current new development in Harbour.
Post by dlzc
and is in front of NO
student. So we have a few hundred converts, and will die in 20 years
as we do.
The trick is to convert Delphi, C++, Java, ... users to the Clipper camp. That
has nothing to do with all the Clipper clones being rivals, it is just a sad
fact that Clipper never took off on the same scale as some other development
systems (and that the early Clipper clones for Windows did not deliver as
promised). And now it is probably too late to do very much about it. One writer
from the Linux world popped in on the Harbour list recently and wrote a small
article about Harbour programming for his magazine, but otherwise we (all the
users of all the clones together) are on our own.

Programmers are conservative. That is why we still use Clipper and its clones.
And that is why it will be an enormous task to convert even a few users from
other camps to one of ours.

Regards,
Klas

-------
klas dot engwall at engwall dot com

http://www.engwall.com/clipper/

The LFN Library for Clipper
The LanMan Library for Clipper
The NFPAT1A Timeslice release patch for the Nanforum Toolkit
dlzc
2011-04-30 17:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Dear Klas Engwall:

On Apr 29, 2:34 pm, ***@nospam.please (Klas Engwall) wrote:

On another thread, someone made the mistake of thanking me... at least
more than my ego could accept. I started naming people that helped
out here... really far more than me. I named a lot of people that
helped, and for some reason did not name you. Ever wonder if a fish
thanks the water? Thank you, Klas.
Post by Klas Engwall
David,
Post by dlzc
would [mingw] for wince support wp7 ?
(fatfat: I'd assume you'd have different instances of minGW,
or flags to tell it what OS / processor to generate code for.)
To Fatfat: As far as I understand, CygWin would be required
to build for WinCE. It has been discussed in the Harbour
mailing lists recently. Please refer to those resources rather
than going into more detailed questions here.
Post by dlzc
And now we see what the "Swiss Army Knife" approach
presents in terms of challenges to the newbie.
Well, all the different tools of the Swiss Army Knife need not
be used for those who only want to comple their applications
for Windows.
But they have to choose, know what to choose, and how to choose it.
Post by Klas Engwall
The Harbour nightly build, mentioned by Massimo earlier in
this thread, is extremely simple to use. Only the path of the
Harbour build tool hbmk2 and the path of the C compiler
have to be specified, the rest is taken care of automatically.
Much easier to set up than xHarbour, actually.
xHarbour.org, I have no doubt. Not xHarbour.com. (Please understand,
I am not "selling", I have no stock, I get no royalties. I am
thanking those that helped me.)
Post by Klas Engwall
Post by dlzc
This was only part of the hurdle I faced when my need
arose. Harbour was stagnant, cold, and unfriendly at that
time.  And they even now assume that everyone that walks
in the door is well versed in the lingo, and knows where to
go and what to do.  I personally will not bother with
something that does not present a Windows interface (non-
console) for doing my job.
That of course disqualifies xharbour.org :-)
Absolutely.
Post by Klas Engwall
but Harbour now has the Qt wrappers very near completion,
so Harbour is qualified by your definition, at least "real
soon now".
Post by dlzc
Rather than sticking a knife in the back of a small rival like
xHarbour, posting little posts about how wonderful Harbour
is in comparison to xHarbour, wouldn't it be wonderful if
someone had their eye on the ball?
Who is sticking knives in the small rival? I mentioned the
other day that those who need Harbour functionality can
find that in Harbour rather than hoping that someone will
implement those things in xHarbour.
In the last week, there have been four threads initiated here, that
were quite obviously aimed at nothing so much as gleaning "converts".
I ain't picking on you, or them.
Post by Klas Engwall
Massimo meant to recommend (at least I think he did) in
a previous thread a couple of days ago that those who
are happy witn xHarbour stay with it (but slipped slightly
on the keyboard). Besides that, a couple of xHarbour users
recently looked at Harbour and expressed their liking of the
product. And URLS of Harbour resources have been
posted in reply to direct questions. I really see no knives.
Speed test. Factual no doubt.
Three more, where Harbour rides in to save the day. Still no friendly
front end for the programmer... unless he/she likes mucking
with .bat / .lnk files and the like. Maybe I'm feeling left out.
Post by Klas Engwall
In fact, I would rather discuss xHarbour matters here and
Harbour matters on the Harbour mailing lists, but straight
questions require straight answers.
I'd rather the tool be discussed that suits the job at hand. I'd
actually like it better if xHarbour were simply an eXtended Harbour.
And the rising tide floated all boats. But that is apparently waiting
for one of two giants (people, and my opinion of them) to die first.
Post by Klas Engwall
Post by dlzc
Why is neither in distro with any version of Linux?  I
scan what is available with Ubuntu, which is *everywhere*,
nothing.
That has been discussed recently on the Harbour developer
list, and as far as I could understand there will be attempts
to get Harbour into at least some of the distros after the next
stable release. I have no answers regarding xHarbour. Is
there a working Linux version?
If I understand Luiz correctly, yes. Has been for some long time.
But no plans I am aware of in actually doing anything different to
attract new users.
Post by Klas Engwall
Post by dlzc
We get better, when we stop thinking small.
As to xHarbour being an eXtended Harbour, it appears this
is no longer true.  Intentionally, decisions have been made
both not to update the core (by actually basing on Harbour
*today*) as claimed^, nor to come to agreement with the
one that is updating Harbour on ways / means. Dynamic
tension can carry us all forward, but when xHarbour is left
behind, and has been successfully put out of business,
Harbour still cannot swallow every other language out there,
Probably true, and the same goes for every other existing
Clipper-based development system. Clipper itself was a
niche product, and most Clipper users went in other directions
in the nineties  -  Delphi, C++, Java, etc, etc.
Why do you think that is? Is it because it started requiring the
administrivia of C to get anything done, it lost the "fourth
generation" language facilities it started out with, it simply was not
taught in school, or something else?
Post by Klas Engwall
A few of us remain and are now spread even thinner over
the existing "clones". Personally I still maintain a few 16-bit
Clipper applications, I have my rather large EDI converter and
a bunch of Excel related utilities written in xHarbour,
and I do my current new development in Harbour.
Most of my code is no longer used. And I'm OK with that. I had a
very complex hydraulic lift system making gloves, that kicked butt for
a couple of years. Balanced tables of liquid (cheaper than lowering
the glove forms, weird), raised and lowered at varying speeds, and
hand-coded the PID loops in "visual assembly language" (aka. PLC
code). Engineered up all the metal bits, valves, piping, and such.
Cut it up with a torch when they moved to Sri Lanka ($30 per month,
fully absorbed labor). I was upset about *that*.
Post by Klas Engwall
Post by dlzc
and is in front of NO student.  So we have a few hundred
converts, and will die in 20 years as we do.
The trick is to convert Delphi, C++, Java, ... users to the
Clipper camp.
Ain't going to do that by looking like C.
Post by Klas Engwall
That has nothing to do with all the Clipper clones being
rivals, it is just a sad fact that Clipper never took off on the
same scale as some other development systems (and that
the early Clipper clones for Windows did not deliver as
promised). And now it is probably too late to do very much
about it. One writer from the Linux world popped in on the
Harbour list recently and wrote a small article about Harbour
programming for his magazine, but otherwise we (all the
users of all the clones together) are on our own.
Programmers are conservative. That is why we still use
Clipper and its clones. And that is why it will be an
enormous task to convert even a few users from other camps
to one of ours.
You may not have caught the underlying angst in the movie "Tron". It
was basically a bitch about programs losing their operator interfaces
(procedural programming), in favor of modular programming where there
was no code that did anything directly with the user. In other words
DOS vs. Windoze.

Programmers are the most liberal people I know, about most things.
But you are right, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is very
conservative.

Care to talk about why "SET FORMAT TO" was a bad idea? It seemed to
have / hold so much promise...

David A. Smith
Klas Engwall
2011-05-01 02:25:47 UTC
Permalink
David,
Post by dlzc
On another thread, someone made the mistake of thanking me... at least
more than my ego could accept.
I guess your ego will have to accept that :-). In the four years long history of
this newsgroup you are at the top of the list of contributors:

1536 dlzc
703 Massimo Belgrano
Post by dlzc
I started naming people that helped
out here... really far more than me. I named a lot of people that
helped, and for some reason did not name you.
I vaguely remember that message but had absolutely no problem with it.
Post by dlzc
Ever wonder if a fish thanks the water? Thank you, Klas.
NP, David. :-)
Post by dlzc
Post by Klas Engwall
Post by dlzc
And now we see what the "Swiss Army Knife" approach
presents in terms of challenges to the newbie.
Well, all the different tools of the Swiss Army Knife need not
be used for those who only want to comple their applications
for Windows.
But they have to choose, know what to choose, and how to choose it.
They have to run the installer and add those two paths I mentioned to the PATH
system variable. We are all professionals, aren't we? Shouldn't we understand
enough to be able to read the instructions in the INSTALL file? If we fail to do
that, how can we ever help our clients when _their_ going gets tough?
Post by dlzc
Post by Klas Engwall
The Harbour nightly build, mentioned by Massimo earlier in
this thread, is extremely simple to use. Only the path of the
Harbour build tool hbmk2 and the path of the C compiler
have to be specified, the rest is taken care of automatically.
Much easier to set up than xHarbour, actually.
xHarbour.org, I have no doubt. Not xHarbour.com. (Please understand,
I am not "selling", I have no stock, I get no royalties. I am
thanking those that helped me.)
OK, let us consider for a moment who we (the subscribers at comp.lang.xharbour)
are. The people who hang out here - with the exception of yourself and maybe a
handful of the 375 subscribers mentioned in Google's statistics - are
xharbour.org users. I, for one, have no idea how the xHarbour.com version works
or how easy or difficult it is to get started with. And I have no interest in
it. <set rant on> I started using xHarbour, on a small scale, when it was forked
off Harbour ten years ago. I got worried when it was forked again by the same
people into a commercial version, and I realized a couple of years ago that
xHarbour.org was dead and is now just the open source alibi of the commercial
xHarbour. The non-xharbour.com people who used to contribute to the product are
all gone (except for Andi) and judging by the developer mailing list none of the
xHarbour.com folks add anything of significance to the base product either (I
have not contributed much over the years either, but that is because I keep out
of things I don't understand) <set rant off>

I am not selling anything either, but when I compare Harbour with xHarbour it is
the .org version I am talking about.
Post by dlzc
Post by Klas Engwall
Who is sticking knives in the small rival? I mentioned the
other day that those who need Harbour functionality can
find that in Harbour rather than hoping that someone will
implement those things in xHarbour.
In the last week, there have been four threads initiated here, that
were quite obviously aimed at nothing so much as gleaning "converts".
I ain't picking on you, or them.
If those threads were the knives you were referring to you must have delicate
skin :-).

"netpro99" asked about a hbnetio lib for xHarbour, Luiz made a bogus claim about
something in the tests folder being hbnetio under a different name and Przemek
corrected him. Mel asked about a mobile xHarbour version, and Przemek answered
that it does not exist but that Harbour runs on several mobile devices, although
without GUI at the moment. Michael Hagl asked about the differences between
Harbour and xHarbour, and Massimo replied with the URL of Harbour's xdiff.txt
document. Then he added a plug about multi-platform support. Fatfat got
interested and asked where Harbour folks hang out (and we are still in that
thread). Mel mentioned that he had just run Przemek's speedtest utility under
both Harbour and xHarbour but did not post any results directly in the newsgroup
(and Mel has been one of the most devoted xHarbour users ever). I see no threads
that were 'obviously aimed at nothing so much as gleaning "converts"'. Massimo
even said that he was hoping for better collaboration between the two teams in
the future, as he has done many times before.
Post by dlzc
Post by Klas Engwall
Massimo meant to recommend (at least I think he did) in
a previous thread a couple of days ago that those who
are happy witn xHarbour stay with it (but slipped slightly
on the keyboard). Besides that, a couple of xHarbour users
recently looked at Harbour and expressed their liking of the
product. And URLS of Harbour resources have been
posted in reply to direct questions. I really see no knives.
Speed test. Factual no doubt.
Three more, where Harbour rides in to save the day.
If Harbour can deliver and xHarbour cannot, should Harbour users then rather say
"We have no idea if Harbour can help you with what you want" or "We have no idea
where Harbour users hang out"? How would that help the xHarbour users who are
asking the questions? If they do not know where to find alternatives to what
they are using (if that is what they need), what good does it do? Sure, xHarbour
keeps a few users who cannot find Harbour. But who wins and who loses then? What
is so wrong about Massimo saying that Harbour runs on Android, for example?
Again, straight questions require straight answers, not hiding in the bushes.
Post by dlzc
Still no friendly
front end for the programmer... unless he/she likes mucking
with .bat / .lnk files and the like. Maybe I'm feeling left out.
Maybe you should take a look at the current Harbour then because what you are
talking about is ancient history. There is a friendly front end called hbide
that Pritpal announced here too a few months ago. It is not fully functional yet
but works for both Harbour and xHarbour, as far as I know (at the moment you
need to compile it yourself). And the bat files are all gone. There is a hbm
file that is as close as you get to the old kind of make files and that is the
default way to tell the commandline build tool which prg files to include in the
build (if you choose not to use hbide). I am not gleaning converts, I just think
that your judgement of Harbour is a bit off and needs to be updated (and do
remember what I said above about what I am comparing with).
Post by dlzc
Post by Klas Engwall
In fact, I would rather discuss xHarbour matters here and
Harbour matters on the Harbour mailing lists, but straight
questions require straight answers.
I'd rather the tool be discussed that suits the job at hand. I'd
actually like it better if xHarbour were simply an eXtended Harbour.
It was, but it came to a halt, and then Harbour was developed to its current
extended level instead. So they have changed places with one another, IMO. I
don't see how xHarbour can ever be an extended Harbour again when it is not
under any further development (except under the commercial roof of
xHarbour.com). You can always toss a coin in the fountain, of course. :-)
Post by dlzc
And the rising tide floated all boats. But that is apparently waiting
for one of two giants (people, and my opinion of them) to die first.
Sorry, I don't understand that.
Post by dlzc
Post by Klas Engwall
Post by dlzc
Why is neither in distro with any version of Linux? =A0I
scan what is available with Ubuntu, which is *everywhere*,
nothing.
That has been discussed recently on the Harbour developer
list, and as far as I could understand there will be attempts
to get Harbour into at least some of the distros after the next
stable release. I have no answers regarding xHarbour. Is
there a working Linux version?
If I understand Luiz correctly, yes. Has been for some long time.
But no plans I am aware of in actually doing anything different to
attract new users.
Yes, I too remember Linux being mentioned many years ago. The question is who is
maintaining it today. There is no mention of it on the xHarbour.com website and
I do not remember any discussions about it here at least since the beginning of
this newsgroup.
Post by dlzc
Post by Klas Engwall
Clipper itself was a
niche product, and most Clipper users went in other directions
in the nineties - Delphi, C++, Java, etc, etc.
Why do you think that is? Is it because it started requiring the
administrivia of C to get anything done, it lost the "fourth
generation" language facilities it started out with, it simply was not
taught in school, or something else?
I remember reading something in another newsgroup many years ago (can't remember
which one it was) where Clipper was dismissed as something to compile dBase code
with, and only that. Useless for any general programming. At that time I had
already written my utility that walked the MCB (Memory Control Block) chain in
DOS and listed the owners of all memory segments. And I was glad that I didn't
know how useless Clipper was before I started that project :-)

Anyway, I think that too few people knew about Clipper to begin with. And its
ancient dBase history certainly did not help in selling it to the masses. The
Clipper user groups here in Europe were generally always small, but
interestingly Clipper was a popular product in the old Eastern block. I remember
stories from Nantucket/CA saying that there were a lot more developers coming to
Soviet Technicon than they had ever sold copies of Clipper there. :-)

Why many of the Clipper developers left the sinking ship probably had a lot to
do with CA's inability to glean (!) them over to VO. I invested in the alpha
version and upgraded to 2.0 (I think it was 2.0) but I never felt comfortable
with it - the unstable repository, the many bugs, the uncertain future when
the development team was sent on loan to other CA departments for long periods
of time. Financially, Clipper was a failure (hence the CA takeover), and with a
user base that much too small there was never a chance for anyone else to create
a commercial Clipper clone and make any money off it (heck, the extremely
popular Borland of old never made any money except for a month or two when new
versions of Turbo Pascal and Turbo C were released). So all the Clipper clones
are locked into the history of Clipper itself, and I see no way that any of them
can be anything but a niche product. Ever. Sadly.
Post by dlzc
Post by Klas Engwall
The trick is to convert Delphi, C++, Java, ... users to the
Clipper camp.
Ain't going to do that by looking like C.
Are you saying that you would rather prefer the old dBase syntax than what
Nantucket and CA introduced? You can use the preprocessor to do that.
Post by dlzc
Post by Klas Engwall
Programmers are conservative. That is why we still use
Clipper and its clones. And that is why it will be an
enormous task to convert even a few users from other camps
to one of ours.
You may not have caught the underlying angst in the movie "Tron". It
was basically a bitch about programs losing their operator interfaces
(procedural programming), in favor of modular programming where there
was no code that did anything directly with the user. In other words
DOS vs. Windoze.
To tell you the truth I have not been to the movies since 1986 :-)
Post by dlzc
Programmers are the most liberal people I know, about most things.
But you are right, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is very
conservative.
I was definitely not thinking about politics but about using the same old
familiar tools as always until the world reshapes completely (like 64-bit
Windows, for example, in the Clipper world) and they (we) simply have to change
... or retire.
Post by dlzc
Care to talk about why "SET FORMAT TO" was a bad idea? It seemed to
have / hold so much promise...
Nope, I have never used a SET FORMAT TO in my entire life, so I have no input
whatsoever. :-)

Back to the subject of multi-platform tools (and the Swiss Army Knife again),
Ella mentioned how the world is changing, with iPads and Androids and all that.
Sales people will travel to customers like they have always done but with
lighter baggage. If they get a question, they will use the smartphone to look up
the answer, when you place an order they will enter it on the smartphone and
send it to HQ, and you will get the order confirmation back in your smartphone.
There will always be need for people to run the back office, but a lot of what
they do today will move to new technology. And then it is comforting to be able
to use the same old tools as always :-) to create the applications that the
clients with the smartphones require. Just use a different feature of your Swiss
Army Knife.

Regards,
Klas

-------
klas dot engwall at engwall dot com

http://www.engwall.com/clipper/

The LFN Library for Clipper
The LanMan Library for Clipper
The NFPAT1A Timeslice release patch for the Nanforum Toolkit
Qatan
2011-05-01 03:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Hello David,
Post by dlzc
And now we see what the "Swiss Army Knife" approach presents in
terms of challenges to the newbie.
Well, for that good documentation with good examples help a lot.
I am not talking about an easy thing but xHarbour has a very good start in
that direction.
That is one of the main advantages of xHarbour, the Reference Guide (really
nice!)


.>..I personally will not bother with something that does not present
Post by dlzc
a Windows interface (non-console) for doing my job.
Nor will I.
Post by dlzc
During WWII, the Germans had lots and lots of really brilliant,
specialty weapons, just few in instantiations. And they were defeated
by those that could produce lots and lots of fairly generic weapons
(having few natural resources had a lot to do with that, which of
course was at the center of the war in the first place).
The Russians were really good at producing lots of fairly generic weapons...
have you ever heard about "operation unthinkable"?
Post by dlzc
So we have Harbour with lots and lots of specialty features, newly
invigorated with how things "should" be run / done. And we have Micro
$haft and Java gleaning away the "new recruits", with reams and reams
of documentation.
Well, xHarbour has a good start... of course it may be costly and lots of
hard work!
Post by dlzc
Rather than sticking a knife in the back of a small rival like
xHarbour, posting little posts about how wonderful Harbour is in
comparison to xHarbour, wouldn't it be wonderful if someone had their
eye on the ball?
Well, let's see it as constructive comparation... I see good things in both
Harbour and xHarbour.
Post by dlzc
Why is neither in distro with any version of Linux? I scan what is
available with Ubuntu, which is *everywhere*, nothing.
Good idea!
Post by dlzc
...and is in front of NO student...
That's VERY IMPORTANT in my opinion... I sent to the xHarbour team (Marcelo
Lombardo and Culik) my idea about some actions to promote (x)Harbour in
agreement with some private company (maybe hardaware?) and maybe with the
support of the government to teach (introduce) yong people to it and making
(x)Harbour their main and favourite programing tool! (It is mine... why not
theirs?) I belive it is the only hope to make (x)Harbour live longer...
Post by dlzc
Whatever. My opinions are my own. Nothing anyone has to fix.
Well appreciated!

Qatan



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
fatfat
2011-04-29 16:52:33 UTC
Permalink
how to set it to run with minigw ?
I got compile error that

C:\hb21\tests>hbmk2 hello -run
hbmk2: Processing environment options: -compiler=bcc32
hbmk2: Error: Compiler value unknown: bcc32

Thanks

"Massimo Belgrano" 在郵件張貼內容主旨
468386a8-8e53-471e-8c03-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com 中撰寫...

Harbour use list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-users

Harbour developer mailing list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-devel

Harbour tutorial is available at:
http://www.gruppoeratostene.com/harbour/harbour-tutorials.htm

I suggest download Harbour 2.1 Nightly binary ready to be installed from
https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/files/binaries-windows/nightly/harbour-nightly-win.exe/download
add to your path c:\hb21\bin
cd \hb21\tests
hbmk2 hello -run
You have Generate hello.exe and executed it

bcc is not realiable for harbour because is old and not tested from active
harbour developer, please try mingw included in niglty
Qatan
2011-04-29 17:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

To compile with MingW you cant set -compiler=bcc32
Actually you do not need any settings other than just the path to the c
compiler (bin folder) and to harbour (bin folder).
That's all you need and if you use hbmk2 you do not even need that.

Qatan
Post by fatfat
how to set it to run with minigw ?
I got compile error that
C:\hb21\tests>hbmk2 hello -run
hbmk2: Processing environment options: -compiler=bcc32
hbmk2: Error: Compiler value unknown: bcc32
Thanks
"Massimo Belgrano" ?????????
???...
Harbour use list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-users
Harbour developer mailing list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-devel
http://www.gruppoeratostene.com/harbour/harbour-tutorials.htm
I suggest download Harbour 2.1 Nightly binary ready to be installed from
https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/files/binaries-windows/nightly/harbour-nightly-win.exe/download
add to your path c:\hb21\bin
cd \hb21\tests
hbmk2 hello -run
You have Generate hello.exe and executed it
bcc is not realiable for harbour because is old and not tested from active
harbour developer, please try mingw included in niglty
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
fatfat
2011-04-30 03:15:07 UTC
Permalink
may be I am new to mingW, how to find and install mingW to work with harbour
2.0 ?

Thanks

"Qatan" 在郵件張貼內容主旨 iper5f$1d73$***@adenine.netfront.net 中撰寫...

Hello,

To compile with MingW you cant set -compiler=bcc32
Actually you do not need any settings other than just the path to the c
compiler (bin folder) and to harbour (bin folder).
That's all you need and if you use hbmk2 you do not even need that.

Qatan
Post by fatfat
how to set it to run with minigw ?
I got compile error that
C:\hb21\tests>hbmk2 hello -run
hbmk2: Processing environment options: -compiler=bcc32
hbmk2: Error: Compiler value unknown: bcc32
Thanks
"Massimo Belgrano" ?????????
???...
Harbour use list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-users
Harbour developer mailing list
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/harbour-devel
http://www.gruppoeratostene.com/harbour/harbour-tutorials.htm
I suggest download Harbour 2.1 Nightly binary ready to be installed from
https://sourceforge.net/projects/harbour-project/files/binaries-windows/nightly/harbour-nightly-win.exe/download
add to your path c:\hb21\bin
cd \hb21\tests
hbmk2 hello -run
You have Generate hello.exe and executed it
bcc is not realiable for harbour because is old and not tested from active
harbour developer, please try mingw included in niglty
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Mel Smith
2011-04-30 03:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by fatfat
may be I am new to mingW, how to find and install mingW to work with
harbour 2.0 ?
Fatfat:

I got my instructions over the last few days from Viktor Szakats and
Qatan from lurking on the harbour newsgroup.

... and over the last few hours getting help from Andi Jahja and further
downloads. I've been learning all my long life, and its not getting any
easier :((

Good Luck !

-Mel
Massimo Belgrano
2011-05-01 13:29:41 UTC
Permalink
mingw is Included in nigtly download
remove all set refering to [x]harbour
fatfat
2011-05-02 02:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Thanks and will try it out


"Massimo Belgrano" 在郵件張貼內容主旨
d3eeea64-8d86-4ac3-af80-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com 中撰寫...

mingw is Included in nigtly download
remove all set refering to [x]harbour
fatfat
2011-05-02 03:59:52 UTC
Permalink
got it compile and run. for the very first step. which is much very easy to
startup with.

will try to port a xharbour project to harbour for the next step

Thanks all

"Massimo Belgrano" 在郵件張貼內容主旨
d3eeea64-8d86-4ac3-af80-***@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com 中撰寫...

mingw is Included in nigtly download
remove all set refering to [x]harbour
Pritpal Bedi
2011-05-04 23:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Hi
Post by Klas Engwall
Maybe you should take a look at the current Harbour then because what you are
talking about is ancient history. There is a friendly front end called hbide
that Pritpal announced here too a few months ago. It is not fully functional yet
but works for both Harbour and xHarbour, as far as I know (at the moment you
need to compile it yourself). And the bat files are all gone.
A small correction, no, rather update:

hbIDE is a fully functional IDE for both,
Harbour and xHarbour. And it is a part of Harbour
binaries as well. You do not need to build it yourself.

BTW, you really explained well to the audience, Klas, thanks.

Pritpal Bedi

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...