Talk:FoxPro
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Looking for opinions... when I decided to start this page last night, I could not think of a name to save this page under. FoxPro and Foxpro were redirects to Visual FoxPro. I changed FoxPro to a disambig page and Foxpro to redirect to FoxPro. That done, the best article title I could think of was FoxPro 2 (for the 2.x tree that ended with 2.6). Any suggestions? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 11:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this article needs alot of work, including a code example or 2. I do all my work in FPU 2.6, and don't even have a copy of FPW anymore. If any are still using FPW26, it would be nice if they lent a hand. Bill W. Smith, Jr. 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A section discussing the popularity of FoxPro, the environment where it grew to prominence and the reasons for its success would be enlightening. --Bsmith94 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did FoxPro 2.6 run on Solaris or SunOS?
- Not to the best of my knowledge. BUT... if ibcs2 will run on Solaris then it SHOULD be possible. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RDBMS?
[edit]"Relational" has nothing to do with "relations between tables"! It is a term in relational algebra, which is a basic for all RDBMS resesarch. "Relation" or "tuple" stands for what is usually called a row.
Was about to comment the same thing. The line "Although FoxPro is a Database Management System (DBMS) and it does support relationships between tables, it is not considered a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS), lacking transactional processing." needs to be changed, though I don't really know what to.
I have added the Intro rewrite template. The opening sentence fails to make the topic clear to a casual reader.WideArc (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
some mistakes
[edit]Operating system compatibility table is invalid. Foxpro 2.6 compatible with Vista 32 bit and Windows 7 32 bit too..
Also why this page named as foxpro 2? I think so it's name should be Foxpro.
metin emre
The article currently reads:
- FoxPro was derived from FoxBase (Fox Software, Perrysburg, Ohio), which was in turn derived from dBase III (Ashton-Tate) and dBase II.
This implies that FoxPro and FoxBase are related in the same way FoxBase and dBase are. FoxPro was essentially the new version of FoxBase: there would be a direct link between the source code of the two versions.
In contrast, FoxBase and dBase were competitors and likely shared no source code (or at least source code written by either company). If they had copied the source code rather than just cloning the UI and command language, I'm sure Ashton-Tate would have alleged that in the lawsuit. James (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- James, you are right in saying that Foxbase and Foxpro do not share a code base with dBASE. But I'm not sure if "derived from" implies that they do. But it might be clearer to say that the FoxPro language is based on dBase. The language is certainly backward compatible with dBase III and dBase IV (but not with dBase II). Can you suggest some suitable wording that would cover that case? Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cander0000:. You reverted my edit, the aim of which was to put Foxpro in the present tense on the basis that it still exists and is still in use. In doing so, you said that the "article consensus is to cover FoxPro in the past tense". I'm not disputing that statement, but I would like to know where the consensus took place. I can see no discussion of it here on the Talk page.
Re my point about Rushmore being included in SQL Server, I was not suggesting that should be part of the article, but merely to support the fact that the technology still exists - as it does in Microsoft Access. I was very much involved with Foxpro at the time of the Microsoft takeover, and the company made it clear at the time that its main interest was in acquiring Rushmore for use in its other database products. I won't attempt to provide any citations to support that because I only made the comment about SQL Server in my edit summary, not in the actual article.
I know that you are knowledgeable about RDMSs in general, so I would be interested in your comment on the above. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have again modified the paragraph about Rushmore to put it in the present tense, on the basis that the technology still exists. Cander0000 (talk * contribs) previously reverted that change, saying that the "article consensus is to cover FoxPro in the past tense". But I can find no evidence of any discussion or consensus on that point, either here on the Talk page or anywhere else.
In any case, it seems to be the usual Wikipedia practice to use the present tense for out-of-date or discontinued technologies or software products. See, for example, Delphi, CP/M and Turbo Pascal.
If any editor disagrees with any of this, by all means revert my edits. But please only do so after a genuine discussion and consensus. Mike Marchmont (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]