CodeCharge Studio
search Register Login  

Web Reports

Visually create Web Reports in PHP, ASP, .NET, Java, Perl and ColdFusion.
CodeCharge.com

YesSoftware Forums -> Archive -> CodeCharge.Discussion

 What Am I Missing?

Print topic Send  topic

Author Message
John Passaniti
Posted: 04/02/2001, 9:38 AM

I'm very impressed by what I have seen of CodeCharge so far. Looking
through some of the demos, I can see enormous potential. But before I
order it, I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.

Specifically documentation. I'm assuming that the downloadable manual *is*
the manual, and that there isn't a different and more complete version that
I get when I order the package. If so, I'm concerned about the quality of
the documentation.

Let's take a tiny example-- the login form. Go to the properties and look
at all the events that are listed. Now where in the documentation is a
description of when "Open" fires? If I put code in "Before Show" what
variables can I affect to modify the behavior? If I change "Custom Show"
what does that exactly do-- by pass the filling of the template for that
form?

Please don't answer those questions because I already know the answers. I
found out by going to each event and putting a comment in the code. For
example I went to the Open event and put in the ASP comment:

' Open Event Here!

I then searched the generated code, read what was before and after, and
then figured out what was going on. A better example was in validation
code for Record forms. Say I want to add a Validation event. Looking at
the code, I can see I add validation by affecting a variable named
s<name>Err, where <name> is the name of the form. Now where in the
documentation is that variable name listed?

And that's why I think I'm missing something. I shouldn't have to go
through each of the form types, play with the events and other options,
generate code, and then inspect the code to understand what is going on. I
shouldn't have to read through the generated code to determine what
internal variable names are used and in what context. This should be
documented somewhere. But I can't find it.

Andy Farrell
Posted: 04/02/2001, 10:03 PM

John,

Agreed!

Some kind of block diagram showing the logic flow would also be helpful to
understand for example that forms ALWAYS submit to themselves, then redirect
to target form. (Which makes we wonder why it is not possible to pass a form
field variable created during an insert to the next form, which may be
inserting into another table - for example Add New Customer -> Add New
Transaction)

- Andy




"John Passaniti" <nntp@JapanIsShinto.com> wrote in message
news:9aa9ts$nds$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> I'm very impressed by what I have seen of CodeCharge so far. Looking
> through some of the demos, I can see enormous potential. But before I
> order it, I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
>
> Specifically documentation. I'm assuming that the downloadable manual
*is*
> the manual, and that there isn't a different and more complete version
that
> I get when I order the package. If so, I'm concerned about the quality of
> the documentation.
>
> Let's take a tiny example-- the login form. Go to the properties and look
> at all the events that are listed. Now where in the documentation is a
> description of when "Open" fires? If I put code in "Before Show" what
> variables can I affect to modify the behavior? If I change "Custom Show"
> what does that exactly do-- by pass the filling of the template for that
> form?
>
> Please don't answer those questions because I already know the answers. I
> found out by going to each event and putting a comment in the code. For
> example I went to the Open event and put in the ASP comment:
>
> ' Open Event Here!
>
> I then searched the generated code, read what was before and after, and
> then figured out what was going on. A better example was in validation
> code for Record forms. Say I want to add a Validation event. Looking at
> the code, I can see I add validation by affecting a variable named
> s<name>Err, where <name> is the name of the form. Now where in the
> documentation is that variable name listed?
>
> And that's why I think I'm missing something. I shouldn't have to go
> through each of the form types, play with the events and other options,
> generate code, and then inspect the code to understand what is going on.
I
> shouldn't have to read through the generated code to determine what
> internal variable names are used and in what context. This should be
> documented somewhere. But I can't find it.
>
>

John King
Posted: 04/02/2001, 10:23 PM

I have to agree. I was/am also very impressed with this software, but
the documentation is a huge letdown. So much so, I feel the program
should still be a beta version. I notice it has only been on the market
for a month or so, but I think it needs working on before becoming a
serious contender, in what is virtually is a one horse race.

The documentation seems to be a copy of the help file, which doesn't
answer the questions I continually ask. I'm working on a very complex
script that requires sessions management. The program handles this well,
but I keep finding myself at brick walls, having to experiment instead
of getting on with the job.

In a nutshell, I think the program has amazing potential, but I don't
have time to experiment.

Best wishes to all,

John


Kevin Donnelly
Posted: 04/03/2001, 7:23 AM

Hi

> Specifically documentation. I'm assuming that the downloadable manual
*is*
> the manual, and that there isn't a different and more complete version
that
> I get when I order the package. If so, I'm concerned about the quality of
> the documentation.

I think one of the problems is that this is such a fast-moving field that
most of the company's effort is being devoted to keeping on top of new
developments, and you can't really blame them for letting docs take a back
seat. I think there are three types of user - the ones who will just want
to point and click, the ones who know a little more (but not much), and the
people who have been coding manually for a while and see this as a neat way
of speeding things up. I'm not sure that the third group will actually need
many docs, particularly if they look through the examples. Docs would
certainly attract the first group, but as you say, the app has only been out
a month and it still has a few rough edges (eg I found a minor bug this
morning), so maybe bringing that group in now would not actually be the best
thing.

That leaves the second group, where abilities will differ anyway (eg you and
Andy seem to be a lot more experienced with coding than I am).
Nevertheless, in the 6 weeks since I bought the app, I have accumulated a
few notes/hints/tips. I wonder whether there would be any mileage in
adopting the open-source approach of the users doing some of the docs
writing, perhaps in the first instance by setting up a few tips pages? If
there's any interest, I could try to put something together, hopefully in a
format that would allow everyone to add their tuppence-worth.

Kevin

John King
Posted: 04/03/2001, 8:47 AM

G'day Kevin,

Your idea is a good one worth pursuing. The CC folks did ask for people
to write a manual a few months back and maybe they never got a good
response. I agree about the three user levels, but they must all be
catered for. I know it's not a fair comparison, but Clarion (4gl RAD
tool for Windows) has three manuals totaling 2000 pages. The beginners
guide which takes you through two examples not much larger than any of
the excellent CC samples, is a mere 200 pages thick! By the time you
finish the last page, you have a very good idea of Clarion's
capabilities.

The sad thing is that CodeCharge has more to offer than meets the human
eye. In fact I completed more than half my project without writing a
single line of code. That in itself is impressive. Had there been a
manual with more instructions and examples, I believe I could have
created the entire program without writing more than 100 lines of code.
The power of this product will only ever be unleashed with much more
detailed documentation and a few step by step examples. I kept referring
back to the packaged examples, but it was a pain in the butt.

I can't continue using the program because my 20 day evaluation period
will expire tonight. Because I live in Australia, the product would cost
me close on AU$400 (maybe more) to import, which is a far more than I
can afford to pay. In the meantime, I'll keep coming back to the site
and the newsgroup to see how things progress. I'm just annoyed I never
knew about the product when it was in development, because being a
Clarion user over the past 10 years, I feel I could have had something
to contribute.

In the meantime, if you have more than one project to complete and you
have time to play, I'd recommend buying this product provided your
exchange rate is better than mine!

Good luck to all.
John Passaniti
Posted: 04/03/2001, 12:28 PM


Kevin Donnelly <kevin@dotmon.uklinux.net> wrote in message
news:9acmc7$937$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> I wonder whether there would be any mileage in adopting
> the open-source approach of the users doing some of the
> docs writing, perhaps in the first instance by setting up a
> few tips pages?

I think this is a good idea, but let's keep three things in mind:

1) Such an effort would not be a substitute for proper documentation. In
the examples I gave that started this thread, I wasn't asking for anything
exotic-- just a listing of variables used, and the contexts for events.
There is no reason why CodeCharge couldn't (and shouldn't) offer this as
part of the package. We aren't talking about some freeware or shareware
package here-- we're talking about something each of us will pay
(minimally) $150 for.

2) I like the idea of an user-based "open source documentation" effort.
But since such an effort is being proposed in the context of inadequate
documentation, CodeCharge should sponsor the effort and should in some way
reward those who contribute to the documentation.

3) People from CodeCharge should actively and carefully monitor all
user-generated documentation for accuracy. The only thing worse than not
having documentation from the company is having incorrect documentation.
One wastes your time by forcing you to study the code. The other wastes
your time by leading you astray.


August Simonelli
Posted: 04/03/2001, 5:14 PM

Hello all,

I have been lurking in the wings of this newgroup reading the posts to see if
CodeCharge is the app for me and my web development. You all seem pretty
pleased with it; however I am intrigued by this documentation thread.

I have used Dreamweaver Ultradev 1 since it came out (but not Ver 4 - hence my
searching for CodeCharge) and found it to be quite good. I didn't think the
documentation was spectacular, but it was enough for me to get STARTED. The
only way to move on was to join newsgroups and troll the web for tips. It
sounds like CodeCharge is much the same, except with a smaller market (which i
would assume will grow if it is as good as you all say). One thing I would
like to point out is most apps DON'T seem to have good documentation, just
look at all the "do-it-yourself" computer books on the shelves these days. For
a lot of people (myself included) it seems that the cost of software is the
actual package and then at least one good help manual (even O'Reilly has a
"Missing Manual" series!!).

If the software continues to catch on and get good reviews I'd bet someone
(probably one of the people in this news group) will write a book (or two!).

Anyway, just a few errant thoughts ...

August Simonelli

John Passaniti wrote:

> Kevin Donnelly <kevin@dotmon.uklinux.net> wrote in message
>news:9acmc7$937$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> > I wonder whether there would be any mileage in adopting
> > the open-source approach of the users doing some of the
> > docs writing, perhaps in the first instance by setting up a
> > few tips pages?
>
> I think this is a good idea, but let's keep three things in mind:
>
> 1) Such an effort would not be a substitute for proper documentation. In
> the examples I gave that started this thread, I wasn't asking for anything
> exotic-- just a listing of variables used, and the contexts for events.
> There is no reason why CodeCharge couldn't (and shouldn't) offer this as
> part of the package. We aren't talking about some freeware or shareware
> package here-- we're talking about something each of us will pay
> (minimally) $150 for.
>
> 2) I like the idea of an user-based "open source documentation" effort.
> But since such an effort is being proposed in the context of inadequate
> documentation, CodeCharge should sponsor the effort and should in some way
> reward those who contribute to the documentation.
>
> 3) People from CodeCharge should actively and carefully monitor all
> user-generated documentation for accuracy. The only thing worse than not
> having documentation from the company is having incorrect documentation.
> One wastes your time by forcing you to study the code. The other wastes
> your time by leading you astray.
John Passaniti
Posted: 04/04/2001, 10:45 AM


August Simonelli <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ACA6738.3ECD282A@bbrdesign.com.au...
> One thing I would like to point out is most apps DON'T
> seem to have good documentation, just look at all the
> "do-it-yourself" computer books on the shelves these days.

Sorry, you statements don't make sense with CodeCharge.

If you've spent any time in this newsgroup, you see that the model most
people use with CodeCharge-- and indeed the model that CodeCharge staff
promote-- is to use CodeCharge to generate the basic structure and
framework. Then, you go in and add your "business logic".

In order to do that requires documentation or study of the code that
CodeCharge generates. There is no way around it. For example, if you want
custom validation you *will* need to know the name of the variable that
holds the error messages. This *demands* at least minimal documentation on
these details.

I'm not expecting something with the length of "War and Peace" that takes
my hand and details every tiny detail of the product. I'm expecting
someone at CodeCharge will take what *must* be part of their internal
documentation, and make it external so the rest of us can use it.

I would also like to see CodeCharge staff respond to this general issue,
with some kind of statement about what their plans for documentation are in
the future.

August Simonelli
Posted: 04/04/2001, 6:56 PM

Oops ... you are right ... I haven't looked hard enough at the newgroup and
should have realised that CodeCharge is different (and better!) than I realised
.... :-(

I'm new to this all and got too excited about posting ... I agree with your
point ...

Looks like CodeCharge is pretty good, a lot more in depth than Dreamweaver ...
I guess I didn't ever have to deal with much code with Dreamweaver ... (i know,
i know, you probably can't stand big mouths like me, sorry 'bout that ... )

It seems what you are saying makes sense ... would you say CodeCharge is too
hard to use without the documentation for inexperienced users? Can the info be
figured out or is it too much hassle ... ?

Maybe it'll be a part of Version 2!

Again, sorry for the ignorant post ... :-(

August

John Passaniti wrote:

> August Simonelli <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3ACA6738.3ECD282A@bbrdesign.com.au...
> > One thing I would like to point out is most apps DON'T
> > seem to have good documentation, just look at all the
> > "do-it-yourself" computer books on the shelves these days.
>
> Sorry, you statements don't make sense with CodeCharge.
>
> If you've spent any time in this newsgroup, you see that the model most
> people use with CodeCharge-- and indeed the model that CodeCharge staff
> promote-- is to use CodeCharge to generate the basic structure and
> framework. Then, you go in and add your "business logic".
>
> In order to do that requires documentation or study of the code that
> CodeCharge generates. There is no way around it. For example, if you want
> custom validation you *will* need to know the name of the variable that
> holds the error messages. This *demands* at least minimal documentation on
> these details.
>
> I'm not expecting something with the length of "War and Peace" that takes
> my hand and details every tiny detail of the product. I'm expecting
> someone at CodeCharge will take what *must* be part of their internal
> documentation, and make it external so the rest of us can use it.
>
> I would also like to see CodeCharge staff respond to this general issue,
> with some kind of statement about what their plans for documentation are in
> the future.
Patrick L.
Posted: 04/04/2001, 10:58 PM


August Simonelli <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in messagenews:3ACA6738.3ECD282A@bbrdesign.com.au...
> Hello all,
>
> I have been lurking in the wings of this newgroup reading the posts to see if
> CodeCharge is the app for me and my web development. You all seem pretty
> pleased with it; however I am intrigued by this documentation thread.
>
> I have used Dreamweaver Ultradev 1 since it came out (but not Ver 4 - hence my
> searching for CodeCharge) and found it to be quite good. I didn't think the
> documentation was spectacular, but it was enough for me to get STARTED. The
> only way to move on was to join newsgroups and troll the web for tips.


I think the proper word you are looking is for "trawl", as in a fisherman's trawl net, not "troll", which
is an offensive activity in usenet. (But you knew that.)

And as for documentation, quality of, it's my biggest beef. I'm a newbie and I was trying
to learn Perl on my own, and I have five books, and not one of them know really how
to jump into the skin of someone who knows nothing. The only exception might
be the vrox books, and on the php and perl books they seem to do it right.

The documention on codecharge is terrible, worse than most, I would say.

It says 'connect to a database, any database'.

I'm a newbie, and I don't know how to do that, and the documentation doesn't tell me, either.

So it seems to me that codecharge is for programmers, not nonprogrammers.

Still trying to learn, though.

:)

Patrick L.
www.choozart.com









August Simonelli
Posted: 04/04/2001, 11:55 PM

Yeah ... trawl *is* what I meant, oops! ...

I think your right in that CodeCharge is (at present) for programmers (which, obviously, I am not) ... but I
think it looks really good and seems more flexible than the other applications of this type that I have seen
.... I totally missed the need for documentation cause I was just following the demos and quickstart guides
(shoulda waited before posting, bit embarrassing that, as it is now becomming obvious to me that the
documentation is lacking a bit) ... but I'm learning as I go! :-) the examples pages that you can download
have helped me ... the more I do the more I can follow the newsgroup ...

I just found out what "troll" means on usenet ... whoops ... I'm a bigtime usenet newbie (as is becoming
painfully obvious here!).

august

"Patrick L." wrote:

> August Simonelli <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in messagenews:3ACA6738.3ECD282A@bbrdesign.com.au...
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I have been lurking in the wings of this newgroup reading the posts to see if
> > CodeCharge is the app for me and my web development. You all seem pretty
> > pleased with it; however I am intrigued by this documentation thread.
> >
> > I have used Dreamweaver Ultradev 1 since it came out (but not Ver 4 - hence my
> > searching for CodeCharge) and found it to be quite good. I didn't think the
> > documentation was spectacular, but it was enough for me to get STARTED. The
> > only way to move on was to join newsgroups and troll the web for tips.
>
> I think the proper word you are looking is for "trawl", as in a fisherman's trawl net, not "troll", which
> is an offensive activity in usenet. (But you knew that.)
>
> And as for documentation, quality of, it's my biggest beef. I'm a newbie and I was trying
> to learn Perl on my own, and I have five books, and not one of them know really how
> to jump into the skin of someone who knows nothing. The only exception might
> be the vrox books, and on the php and perl books they seem to do it right.
>
> The documention on codecharge is terrible, worse than most, I would say.
>
> It says 'connect to a database, any database'.
>
> I'm a newbie, and I don't know how to do that, and the documentation doesn't tell me, either.
>
> So it seems to me that codecharge is for programmers, not nonprogrammers.
>
> Still trying to learn, though.
>
> :)
>
> Patrick L.
> www.choozart.com
Jeri
Posted: 04/05/2001, 12:24 AM



"August Simonelli" <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in message
3ACC169F.F989E875@bbrdesign.com.au>...
> Yeah ... trawl *is* what I meant, oops! ...

Hi August,

If the negative connotation to troll wasn't attached to usenet, it would be
a proper term to use. (trolling - fishing with a line, trawling - fishing
with a net) But since it is useNET, I guess trawling is the proper term. :-)

Anyway, documentation. To put it bluntly, it blows. I almost gave up in
frustration using this because of that. Especially after reading how *easy*
it was to use. Fortunately I didn't.

For me, I needed to use both my monitors. I had a sample Code Charge example
running on one monitor, and my creation on the other. That way I could
easily compare the two, and model mine after it. When I was just using one
monitor I found it annoying. But if there were printed examples that I could
look at while working on the screen, then it would be okay.

Even using one monitor, I still think it's a good investment of time and
money.

Jer

>
> I think your right in that CodeCharge is (at present) for programmers
(which, obviously, I am not) ... but I
> think it looks really good and seems more flexible than the other
applications of this type that I have seen
> ... I totally missed the need for documentation cause I was just
following the demos and quickstart guides
> (shoulda waited before posting, bit embarrassing that, as it is now
becomming obvious to me that the
> documentation is lacking a bit) ... but I'm learning as I go! :-) the
examples pages that you can download
> have helped me ... the more I do the more I can follow the newsgroup ...
>
> I just found out what "troll" means on usenet ... whoops ... I'm a bigtime
usenet newbie (as is becoming
> painfully obvious here!).
>
> august
>
> "Patrick L." wrote:
>
> > August Simonelli <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ACA6738.3ECD282A@bbrdesign.com.au">news:<3ACC169F.F989E875@bbrdesign.com.au>...
> Yeah ... trawl *is* what I meant, oops! ...

Hi August,

If the negative connotation to troll wasn't attached to usenet, it would be
a proper term to use. (trolling - fishing with a line, trawling - fishing
with a net) But since it is useNET, I guess trawling is the proper term. :-)

Anyway, documentation. To put it bluntly, it blows. I almost gave up in
frustration using this because of that. Especially after reading how *easy*
it was to use. Fortunately I didn't.

For me, I needed to use both my monitors. I had a sample Code Charge example
running on one monitor, and my creation on the other. That way I could
easily compare the two, and model mine after it. When I was just using one
monitor I found it annoying. But if there were printed examples that I could
look at while working on the screen, then it would be okay.

Even using one monitor, I still think it's a good investment of time and
money.

Jer

>
> I think your right in that CodeCharge is (at present) for programmers
(which, obviously, I am not) ... but I
> think it looks really good and seems more flexible than the other
applications of this type that I have seen
> ... I totally missed the need for documentation cause I was just
following the demos and quickstart guides
> (shoulda waited before posting, bit embarrassing that, as it is now
becomming obvious to me that the
> documentation is lacking a bit) ... but I'm learning as I go! :-) the
examples pages that you can download
> have helped me ... the more I do the more I can follow the newsgroup ...
>
> I just found out what "troll" means on usenet ... whoops ... I'm a bigtime
usenet newbie (as is becoming
> painfully obvious here!).
>
> august
>
> "Patrick L." wrote:
>
> > August Simonelli <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ACA6738.3ECD282A@bbrdesign.com.au...
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I have been lurking in the wings of this newgroup reading the posts to
see if
> > > CodeCharge is the app for me and my web development. You all seem
pretty
> > > pleased with it; however I am intrigued by this documentation thread.
> > >
> > > I have used Dreamweaver Ultradev 1 since it came out (but not Ver 4 -
hence my
> > > searching for CodeCharge) and found it to be quite good. I didn't
think the
> > > documentation was spectacular, but it was enough for me to get
STARTED. The
> > > only way to move on was to join newsgroups and troll the web for tips.
> >
> > I think the proper word you are looking is for "trawl", as in a
fisherman's trawl net, not "troll", which
> > is an offensive activity in usenet. (But you knew that.)
> >
> > And as for documentation, quality of, it's my biggest beef. I'm a
newbie and I was trying
> > to learn Perl on my own, and I have five books, and not one of them
know really how
> > to jump into the skin of someone who knows nothing. The only exception
might
> > be the vrox books, and on the php and perl books they seem to do it
right.
> >
> > The documention on codecharge is terrible, worse than most, I would
say.
> >
> > It says 'connect to a database, any database'.
> >
> > I'm a newbie, and I don't know how to do that, and the documentation
doesn't tell me, either.
> >
> > So it seems to me that codecharge is for programmers, not
nonprogrammers.
> >
> > Still trying to learn, though.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Patrick L.
> > www.choozart.com


John King
Posted: 04/05/2001, 12:32 AM

This is my last two pence worth.

CodeCharge should not only be for developers. There are already several
good and handy development tools out there for PHP and many are free.
I'd imagine it would be the same for other languages. As it stands,
CodeCharge can create a range of excellent scripts for people without
any knowledge of anything, without having to write a single line of
code. As an example, my catalog program could have been completed
without writing any script at all, and it would have been as good as any
commercial catalog (not a store) out there. Trouble was, I required a
series of fancy features that were not easily addressed without some
additional knowledge of the program - not PHP itself. Had there been a
few interactive tutorials, I could have finished the project, which
would then have been a virtual gold mine for the people at CC. As it
was, I failed in my mission and that in itself was sad.

Where I came unstuck was what I thought a relatively simple procedure. I
wanted my guests to record the items they found interesting in the
catalog. A bit like adding something to the cart in an e-store. I had a
screen called prod_display where the guest could see a full description
of the product. At that point they had two choices - go back to the
product listing grid via the cancel button, or acknowledge that the
product was of some interest. This simply involved updating what would
be the shopping cart without actually accessing it, then returning to
the product listing grid. They had to end up at the same spot as the
guest who hit cancel, just by pressing "approve". My goal was to do this
(a) writing a minimal amount of code or none at all, and (b) do it as if
I had a limited amount of knowledge with php. It should have been easy
but it wasn't. I could write the code ten times faster but that wasn't
my goal.

I know CC can do these things, but some consideration to screen layout
may be in order for version 2. In the meantime, I repeat what I said
earlier. The program does save valuable time when creating forms and
lists (90% of any program), the templates are excellent, and it's a
great investment for a person developing. heaps of scripts. I found I
have one day left on my demo so I intend to create "all" 60+ forms and
tables tonigh and code the rest by hand. I'll let you all know how much
coding this took, plus I'll throw in the snippets for anyone to use.

Regards,

John


Paul
Posted: 04/06/2001, 11:37 AM

Your right it isn't a fair comparison, look at the difference in price!
Clarion is not a bit shy about charging the heck out of their clients, they
ought to give a bloody set of encyclopedias for what they charge!


<snip>I know it's not a fair comparison, but Clarion (4gl RAD
>tool for Windows) has three manuals totaling 2000 pages. The beginners
>guide which takes you through two examples not much larger than any of
>the excellent CC samples, is a mere 200 pages thick! By the time you
>finish the last page, you have a very good idea of Clarion's
>capabilities.
>

John King
Posted: 04/06/2001, 12:00 PM

Hold on there!

I paid AU$500 for Clarion 5.00 and that included the CD and 2000 pages
of documentation. CC will cost me a minimum of AU$ 350, maybe $400 by
the time it's imported. Even though our dollar is less than half the US
dollar, the retail price of software purchased over the counter in
Australia compares favorably. Clarion for all its power is the bargain
of a lifetime to any serious developer. CodeCharge is the Clarion of web
RAD systems, but where Clarion is version 5, CC is still only version 1.
Given time it will continue to improve, but many people think the first
major improvement should be in the documentation. On that point I agree.

Bye.
Kelvin Chua
Posted: 04/06/2001, 3:59 PM

I have been programming for 20 years now, and Clarion is simply the best
tools I ever come across as far as database programming is concerned.

CodeCharge is the best for web database programming is concerned.

But... Clarion is introducing its ASP generation template within the next 60
days; that is to say that the user will be able to visually design a browse
and populate the fields, thereby generate the ASP code for it, with
validation off course.

I am also a registered user for Code Charge.

Thanks.

Kelvin Chua
SINGAPORE

"Paul" <paporter@visto.com> wrote in message
news:9al2dd$8ag$1@mail.tankhill.com...
> Your right it isn't a fair comparison, look at the difference in price!
> Clarion is not a bit shy about charging the heck out of their clients,
they
> ought to give a bloody set of encyclopedias for what they charge!
>
>
> <snip>I know it's not a fair comparison, but Clarion (4gl RAD
> >tool for Windows) has three manuals totaling 2000 pages. The beginners
> >guide which takes you through two examples not much larger than any of
> >the excellent CC samples, is a mere 200 pages thick! By the time you
> >finish the last page, you have a very good idea of Clarion's
> >capabilities.
> >
>
>

Jeffrey A. Stuart
Posted: 04/11/2001, 2:32 AM

Just a reminder folks... the development team for CC is VERY SMALL!!! Yes, documentation is VERY
important... BUT... right now, frankly, I'd rather that they spend their time fixing bugs and
improving the product! For example, I'D LOVE to be able to write my own custom code templates!
:D Also, there is a question as to who and what their market is... Maybe their market is only
for programmers... That I don't know. :) But I will say this, for me, I've been pushing it...
H*LL, I'm an affiliate!

In article <9ah6jk$ong$1@mail.tankhill.com>,jerirej@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> "August Simonelli" <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in message
>3ACC169F.F989E875@bbrdesign.com.au>...
> > Yeah ... trawl *is* what I meant, oops! ...
>
> Hi August,
>
> If the negative connotation to troll wasn't attached to usenet, it would be
> a proper term to use. (trolling - fishing with a line, trawling - fishing
> with a net) But since it is useNET, I guess trawling is the proper term. :-)
>
> Anyway, documentation. To put it bluntly, it blows. I almost gave up in
> frustration using this because of that. Especially after reading how *easy*
> it was to use. Fortunately I didn't.
>
> For me, I needed to use both my monitors. I had a sample Code Charge example
> running on one monitor, and my creation on the other. That way I could
> easily compare the two, and model mine after it. When I was just using one
> monitor I found it annoying. But if there were printed examples that I could
> look at while working on the screen, then it would be okay.
>
> Even using one monitor, I still think it's a good investment of time and
> money.
>
> Jer
>
> >
> > I think your right in that CodeCharge is (at present) for programmers
> (which, obviously, I am not) ... but I
> > think it looks really good and seems more flexible than the other
> applications of this type that I have seen
> > ... I totally missed the need for documentation cause I was just
> following the demos and quickstart guides
> > (shoulda waited before posting, bit embarrassing that, as it is now
> becomming obvious to me that the
> > documentation is lacking a bit) ... but I'm learning as I go! :-) the
> examples pages that you can download
> > have helped me ... the more I do the more I can follow the newsgroup ...
> >
> > I just found out what "troll" means on usenet ... whoops ... I'm a bigtime
> usenet newbie (as is becoming
> > painfully obvious here!).
> >
> > august
> >
> > "Patrick L." wrote:
> >
> > > August Simonelli <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ACA6738.3ECD282A@bbrdesign.com.au">news:<3ACC169F.F989E875@bbrdesign.com.au>...
> > Yeah ... trawl *is* what I meant, oops! ...
>
> Hi August,
>
> If the negative connotation to troll wasn't attached to usenet, it would be
> a proper term to use. (trolling - fishing with a line, trawling - fishing
> with a net) But since it is useNET, I guess trawling is the proper term. :-)
>
> Anyway, documentation. To put it bluntly, it blows. I almost gave up in
> frustration using this because of that. Especially after reading how *easy*
> it was to use. Fortunately I didn't.
>
> For me, I needed to use both my monitors. I had a sample Code Charge example
> running on one monitor, and my creation on the other. That way I could
> easily compare the two, and model mine after it. When I was just using one
> monitor I found it annoying. But if there were printed examples that I could
> look at while working on the screen, then it would be okay.
>
> Even using one monitor, I still think it's a good investment of time and
> money.
>
> Jer
>
> >
> > I think your right in that CodeCharge is (at present) for programmers
> (which, obviously, I am not) ... but I
> > think it looks really good and seems more flexible than the other
> applications of this type that I have seen
> > ... I totally missed the need for documentation cause I was just
> following the demos and quickstart guides
> > (shoulda waited before posting, bit embarrassing that, as it is now
> becomming obvious to me that the
> > documentation is lacking a bit) ... but I'm learning as I go! :-) the
> examples pages that you can download
> > have helped me ... the more I do the more I can follow the newsgroup ...
> >
> > I just found out what "troll" means on usenet ... whoops ... I'm a bigtime
> usenet newbie (as is becoming
> > painfully obvious here!).
> >
> > august
> >
> > "Patrick L." wrote:
> >
> > > August Simonelli <august@bbrdesign.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ACA6738.3ECD282A@bbrdesign.com.au...

--
Jeff Stuart
jstuart@neo.rr.com

   


These are Community Forums for users to exchange information.
If you would like to obtain technical product help please visit http://support.yessoftware.com.

PHP Reports

Visually create Web Reports in PHP, ASP, .NET, Java, Perl and ColdFusion.
CodeCharge.com

Home   |    Search   |    Members   |    Register   |    Login


Powered by UltraApps Forum created with CodeCharge Studio
Copyright © 2003-2004 by UltraApps.com  and YesSoftware, Inc.