Xref: utzoo comp.databases:1115 comp.unix.wizards:9592 comp.unix.questions:7768 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!bbn!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ssc!fyl From: fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) Newsgroups: comp.databases,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: ZIM vs PROGRESS Keywords: Zim, Progress, 4GL, RDBMS Message-ID: <1289@ssc.UUCP> Date: 25 Jun 88 17:34:25 GMT References: <5136@dasys1.UUCP> Organization: Slugland, USA Lines: 41 In article <5136@dasys1.UUCP>, tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) writes: > x > In evaluating 4GL/RDBMS products available for Xenix 386, with an > aim of using one of these to develop an order proccessing/inventory > management/production database system, I've come down to a choice > between Zim and Progress... and right now I'm leaning toward Zim, for > several reasons: > > 3: Zim's self-documentation features far outstrip Progress's. > One example - when one adds or deletes a field from a file, one needs > must recompile any compiled procedures using that file. Zim is kind > enough to tell you which procedures need to be recompiled, so you are > less likely to miss one. This could save a lot of grief in an OLTP > system! Progress does this as well even though possibly at the wrong time. It will not run a procedure when the data dictionary has been updated since the compile. I actually use a make file to do the right compiles when I change include files, a possibly more probable error. > > 4: Progress automatically compiles every procedure before running > it, while Zim permits considerable debugging in an interpreter, then > lets the user decide when it's time to compile. Zim even permits > compiled procedures to call uncompiled procedures, and vice-versa! Again, Progress allows this. All procedures must be compiled to run but Progress just checks to see if a compiled version exists. If not, it compiles the source version. Compile times are not very long so this shouldn't be a serious problem at debug time. The longest compile I have is probably 10-15 seconds for a few hundred lines on a 286 system. Expect the 386 system to run about 4 times faster. I have been using Progress for about 2 years and am happy with it. I don't know about Zim and am interested to see how it all comes out. -- Phil uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl