I cannot say this strongly enough: I have NEVER been so disgusted with ANY magazine as I am with your January 1996 issue. I had more faith than this in the producers of DBMS. Visual Basic probably does not even belong in your magazine, let alone o n the cover with huge, multiple articles accompanying it.
Somewhere in my garage I have the first issue of DBMS -- and every issue after. I have dug these out on occasion, such as to look at the series on database design. P. L. Olympia used to have an Xbase column that I always read, and I was disappoint ed when that was discontinued. I started programming in dBASE in 1982 and at one point I almost canceled my subscription because so little in the magazine seemed to apply to me. I decided that you were looking at bigger issues, a higher level of database development, and I should be more interested in that, too.
It was a little surprising that David M. Kalman, in his From The Editor column, February 1995 (page 10), made no mention of Visual FoxPro. Microsoft put VFP on display at the FoxPro DevCon in January, and I thought it deserved a mention. I dismissed the silence since it was not a shipping product while the others he mentioned were.
I thought you had been blindsided in June when Tom Spitzer described why some developers would use Visual Basic to develop applications (page 97). I thought that Spitzer had never seen a VB database application running. Otherwise he would have mentioned how cold tar running uphill backward in January is faster. Visual FoxPro was released in June, but you made no mention of it.
In August, Spitzer discussed some of the add-on products required to turn VB into a client/server database system (page 88). He again doesn't mention the lack of speed in addition to the necessity of add-ons to make VB work at all. Visual FoxPro became w idely available in August.
Spitzer discussed Access in November 1995 (page 82) and mentions at the same time, "Our readership is not overly interested in developing database applications with Visual Basic." This is true. We expect higher-level information from you.
Data Based Advisor classed Visual FoxPro as a competitor to PowerBuilder. The only discussion DBMS conducted was in October 1995, and then it took Jack Hakim, a visiting author, to say, "The combination of Visual FoxPro's object orientation and database handling makes it a great development choice."
Then came January 1996. Did you do a cover story for Visual dBASE when it came out? Does anyone who only reads your magazine even know it is available? How about Visual FoxPro? Where are the comparisons between PowerBuilder, Visual dBASE, CA-Visual Objec ts, Visual FoxPro, and Oracle tools? Where are these great products when discussing CASE tools? OOP programs?
I'll stick with you -- for the time being -- to see if you wake up, but only because my subscription is paid for. If I had to renew now, I definitely would not.
Georgia E. Gates
71163.2204@compuserve.com
Visual Basic 4.0 was our January cover story because indicators tell us that many of our readers want to know more about VB. Visual Basic, despite its flaws, is a widely used development tool for building client/server systems, and its popularity has been growing steadily. Surveys in DBMS and other magazines tell us that VB developers are more likely to read DBMS than any other general-interest database publication. I receive frequent requests via email for articles that compare VB to other developme nt tools. In response to this, we have scheduled additional features comparing VB, Oracle Power Objects, and Delphi. We also have P. L. Olympia writing a comparison of Visual dBASE, Visual FoxPro, and CA-Visual Objects, so stay tuned. -- Maurice Frank, E ditor
[In reference to David Linthicum's review of Magic 6.0 (DBMS, January 1996, page 31),] I take exception to one of the author's comments regarding Magic 6.0. Toward the end of the review he cites the lack of VBX and OCX support as a minus for this package. At the beginning of the review, he cites the multiplatform capability of this package. You cannot have it both ways. Either leverage your multiplatform code or become tied to Microsoft and Intel and be left behind in the client/server game.
If VBX and OCX code were truly portable, there would be no problem, but I understand them to be tied to the Intel platform. Any application created using VBX/OCX technology would be tied to this platform unless a suitable alternative could be found. Then you would have to go and change all instances of your VBX/OCX calls. Or worse, maintain two separate code bases. As I understand it now, Magic 6.0 allows for a single code base to support the various platforms for which it is implemented. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Tony Kyle
abkyle@ionet.net or tony.kyle@oklaosf.state.ok.us
The fact is, VBX and OCX support for Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and Windows NT client/server development tools is becoming more important as time goes on. Developers can snap in standard prebuilt components rather than building them from scratch. This s aves a lot of time and trouble. Therefore, it's something that most savvy client/server developers look for in a tool.
Other tools, such as PowerBuilder, support VBX and OCX components and still provide multiplatform support (Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows NT, Unix, and Macintosh). So, OCX/VBX and multiplatform support are clearly not mutually exclusive, and you can ha ve it both ways. -- David Linthicum