Re: lack of quality of Oracle Tools

From: Dirk Bellemans <Dirk.Bellemans_at_skynet.belgium>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:35:22 +0200
Message-ID: <7op6vc$o4$>

[Quoted] Well, I just switched back from M$ development to Oracle...

My previous job was MFC development. PL/SQL doesn't match up to the new C++, [Quoted] but you should try to copy dialog boxes and stuff in Visual C++... Besides, apart from the bugs, I cranck out more than two forms a day with D2K: haven't seen anyone ever do that with C++. (IMHO C++ is much more powerfull, [Quoted] but way more expensive to develop and much harder to learn). I've used Uniface, which is very well suited if you're an SM adept and have a glass-fiber connection to your server (although it produces applications much faster than D2K!). And euh, if you've ever seen the data-control from VB, you can't be serious to call that one a 4GL database development tool. So, what's left? Powerbuilder? They can't create thin clients, and you get a [Quoted] lame finger from typing code...

Nah, I prefer D2K for business oriented development. It has bugs, the upgrade scheduling is desastrous and I've never seen anyone capable of installing the docs correctly, but (telephone) support (in Belgium) is excellent (compared to Borland or Microsoft), it has enough printed documentation from third parties (O'Reilly, Osborne) to get you going, development is relatively speedy without sacrificing the runtime performance [Quoted] and with the new OLE2 package, you have the same power to use COM as with any other tool but Visual C++.

Fairly honest: I haven't tried Java yet...

Dirk Bellemans
Modify email address to reply (use .be instead of .belgium)

Cyril Elkaim wrote in message <>...

> I don't like Microsoft, but, in this case, between them and Oracle I
>choose M$. What is the interest to have a competition SQL engine if the
>tools you must utilize with it are unable to make the job done?
Received on Tue Aug 10 1999 - 09:35:22 CEST

Original text of this message