what's the difference:

are the binary different.
are there more/less functions or different syntaxes.
is there a copyright factor...

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 8:39:41 AM UTC-7, timec...@gmail.com wrote:
> what's the difference:
>
> are the binary different.

Yes. Harbour has been extended to use wide characters (not just one character set, but many at the same time). But is less backward compatible to Clipper.

> are there more/less functions or different syntaxes.

Yes, but primarily as involves wide characters (2-4 bytes per character, rather than just one, treated also as an unsigned 1-byte int value).

> is there a copyright factor...

For the commercial xHarbour (SQLRDD / Visual xHarbour), yes. Otherwise no, both are "freeware" with GNU-like licenses.

Honestly, if you are young and going forward, X# probably is a better way to go (if you even want to stick with this ancient dialect). If you are older, and just maintaining, either Harbour or xHarbour will do fine.

I think.

David A. Smith

thanks david

1- for my 'wvw+ps32+dbf' app, xhb would be just fine - right?
(not missing much if i had compiled with harbour - right?)

2. 'if you are young...'
oh...to be young again...

david, a question: what can an (non-cloud based) app compiled with 'xhb/harbour+available libraries' CANNOT DO that other newer/current languages can do/offer TO THE END USER.

On Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 7:00:27 AM UTC-7, timec...@gmail.com wrote:
> thanks david
>
> 1- for my 'wvw+ps32+dbf' app, xhb would be just fine - right?
> (not missing much if i had compiled with harbour - right?)

wvw and ps32 are developed for and only work with xHarbour. Not saying that Harbour does not have its own variants, maybe even with identical names.

Nothing "magic" happens by going to Harbour, and there will be a learning curve. The user community may be more friendly. Remember, you once told me the equivalent of "get stuffed", because you did not want to hear what I had to say.
> 2. 'if you are young...'
> oh...to be young again...

Been there. I'd have to know what I know now, to do it any better, and I could not listen to such advice then. Pass.
> david, a question: what can an (non-cloud based) app compiled
> with 'xhb/harbour+available libraries' CANNOT DO that other
> newer/current languages can do/offer TO THE END USER.

It isn't about the end user. It is about you. To get new / different behaviors out of any language, you have to do more, do differently. You can get classic windows behavior from Visual xHarbour, and avoid Micro$haft drivers for SQL with SQLRDD, but commercial package only. AND they look nothing like Clipper 3.x, which only vaguely resembles dBase II.

This language we use is a crutch, allows us to imagine solutions to novel problems, in terms of methods we know how to implement. It also limits what we can do, and uses a backdoor in Windows that will at some point be denigrated.

So if you want larger horizons, don't look at dBase variants. Modern / current languages have been C-ified, obviating powerful simple commands, because the behaviors of powerful commands are not easily / clearly "tweaked".

The end user is best served by top-down implementation, a good clear UI, addressing the needs of the target audience, and limiting required training / retraining. Since Micro$haft gets paid by third party training firms, they are less interested in this with each version.

My opinions. I hope others chime in and give you theirs.

David A. Smith