> > > We should try. We have nothing to hide and we're > not lying, so I believe all we need to do is put > convincing sources behind our statements.
I totally agree. > F.e. the > guy deleted the word "fast". Now, we have lots and > lots of speed comparisons with Clipper, Xbase++ and > xhb, so the back it up, we can just link to such > a result posted on the mailing list. And see what > happens. > I agree although I think he is right. "Fast" is a very subjective concept. It's possible give proofs about that, of course. > > It should be okay if linked through Google Translate. > In general, it's not okay. And yes, WP has a lot of this citations. > So he should also delete Clipper, xHarbour, > Xbase++ and FlagShip compiler articles as well. > This is plain nonsense, just ignore it, or point > him these articles. A general xBase article > is good idea, but the details are always put > on distinct pages. > He stalking Harbour article for now. My idea is improving xBase article and left implementations details for compilers and interpreters. But this require time. One thing to each time. I can not get Harbour's article polished yet. I am having problems with Dmoz too, but still trying. At least in that case, Harbour is there already. I will try to improve the criteria about TIOBE is indexing xBase languages. Anyway I gave the kick off on english. My wish is "sell" harbour to portuguese speakers. I can do a better job in my natural language. > > BTW, this post has the best value for me because I knew about the MT > debate :-) I think we need create an index to valuable posts like msg10164. > > Yes, absolutely. > > It's in my TODO list ;-) but I can't do it alone. BTW, I thinks it's off-topic but I am curious about past issues on Clipper's and Harbour's history. I will start a new thread if nobody objects about this a few OT. []'s Maniero
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour