Migrating to Harbour

[TimStone]

Enrico,

I work strictly with the Harbour builds Antonio supplies. I do not communicate with the Harbour developers.

I dropped my subscription to xHarbour several years back. I did it because all of the upgrades were with Visual xHarbour which I did not use, and because there was no plan to upgrade the compiler or linker. It may be a fine product but it was not a good business decision to continue paying for it. I also quit asking for support there because the few questions I did ask were left unanswered.

Tim

[James Bott]

Enrico,

I was using xHarbour at first too, then I switched to Harbour. I don't remember why now.

I am mainly interested in Harbour now so we can use MS's C compiler because I wonder how long Borland's will be available.

[Antonio Linares]

To me Harbour is the way to go, but of course, I fully respect if somone wants to keep using xHarbour and FWH will support it too

[Enrico Maria Giordano]

Tim,

I work strictly with the Harbour builds Antonio supplies. I do not communicate with the Harbour developers.

Wise decision, to not communicate with the Harbour developers.

I dropped my subscription to xHarbour several years back. I did it because all of the upgrades were with Visual xHarbour which I did not use, and because there was no plan to upgrade the compiler or linker. It may be a fine product but it was not a good business decision to continue paying for it. I also quit asking for support there because the few questions I did ask were left unanswered.

I never used xHarbour.com distribution. I prefer to use official xHarbour.org so I can choose any compilers I like.

EMG

[Enrico Maria Giordano]

James,

I was using xHarbour at first too, then I switched to Harbour. I don't remember why now.

I am mainly interested in Harbour now so we can use MS's C compiler because I wonder how long Borland's will be available.

As I already wrote, a C compiler is a C compiler. Without a real and specific reason it doesn't make any sense to change it. And in the future I will prefer to not use bloated MS compilers, that's for sure.

EMG

[Enrico Maria Giordano]

Antonio,

To me Harbour is the way to go,

I know.

But a sentence like that is of no value without a list of (at least one) reasons to uphold it.

I will be very happy to find one or more real reason to switch!

EMG

[Antonio Linares]

Enrico,

To me the existence of the library hbcplr.lib for Harbour is such important that I don't need more reasons to choose Harbour.

hbcplr.lib holds the entire Harbour compiler inside it, so we can compile PRGs from our EXEs, in memory and execute the code. To me this is extremelly important

If you want some more reasons, I can provide you with some more, but as I said the above reason is more than enough for me

[Enrico Maria Giordano]

Antonio,

To me the existence of the library hbcplr.lib for Harbour is such important that I don't need more reasons to choose Harbour.

I see. But first, are you sure that xHarbour doesn't have something similar? Second, I really wouldn't know what to do with it, as application developer. At least so far.

EMG

[Antonio Linares]

Enrico,

xHarbour does not provide it. You may ask in the xHarbour devel list. I wish I were wrong

Go to FWH\samples build FiveDBU.prg and open any DBF and click on "Processes". There you have a complete example of use.

This capability is the foundation to build a professional ERP software. ERPs are the most powerful apps by far.

Its possibilities are endless

[Enrico Maria Giordano]

Antonio,

xHarbour does not provide it. You may ask in the xHarbour devel list. I wish I were wrong

Done.

EMG

[Antonio Linares]

Thanks

[hmpaquito]

Antonio,

I will be very happy to find one or more real reason to switch!

EMG

Hundreds reasons, from https://github.com/harbour/core/blob/ma ... b-diff.txt

[Enrico Maria Giordano]

That document is obsolete. Most features are provided by xHarbour too.

EMG

[James Bott]

Antonio,

hbcplr.lib holds the entire Harbour compiler inside it, so we can compile PRGs from our EXEs, in memory and execute the code. To me this is extremely important.

Are you saying this provides runtime compiling, and if so, why is this important?

This capability is the foundation to build a professional ERP software.

By ERP do you mean "Enterprise Resource Planning" or something else? And why would runtime compiling be important to ERP?

I never understood the advantage to runtime compiling--it seems it would be too slow.

[hmpaquito]

That document is obsolete. Most features are provided by xHarbour too.

EMG

Some samples of obsolescence in that document, please.