On Feb 28, 2005, at 10:23 AM, dazz wrote:
My experience has been in abandoning 4D for PostgreSQL and never
looking back.
sorry for continuining this OT, but which is pretty relevant to what
rb dev has to deal with.
can u explain a bit more why's that ? i did a lot of 4D and i still
think it's pretty powerfull and maybe more easy to program than
RB/postgres for more powerfull results. maybe i'm wrong, didn't do
some 4D, and i currently doing RB/postgres stuff ;) (i'm starting
postgres, so i can't really judge anything vs 4D yet.)
I've not done much direct 4D development, but we've used several
4D-based solutions where I work, and they've all sucked. I don't know
if it's just the way those particular solutions were developed, but
they were done by different companies and they were all bad enough to
make me seriously question 4D's capabilities. Sure it's easy to program
in, but so is FileMaker. Databases like 4D and FileMaker certainly have
their places, but they just can't compare to something like PostgreSQL.
Using RB for the front-end lets you provide you users with an
incredibly rich experience. Doing the same or similar tasks that our
old 4D systems did, I'm seeing PostgreSQL/RB completely smoke 4D on the
same hardware. Maybe it's the way the solutions we used were developed,
but there's no contest in terms of speed and stability. Plus,
PostgreSQL is free to deploy.
--
brad at truetech dot org
http://truetech.org
<><
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|