Do you know of a database called Helix?

[Rangoon]

Greetings Fellow FileMaker-ins,

I was recently snooping around one of the other FileMaker forums (I know, I know, show shoot me already) and I saw a post asking the question,

"Do you know of a database called Helix"?

There were no responses to the query, although someone did post a link to a Helix web sight. I

[Lee Smith]

Hi hj,

I have heard of Helix, although the name was Double Helix when I last saw it. It was a database that a friend of mine was working with around 1990. I haven't heard much about it since around 1993 or 4, when he switch over to FileMaker.

Lee

[Rangoon]

Hi Lee,

You are right, Double Helix! I think they changed it to Helix Express after that. But like you, not a word of it since the 90's. As I remember, it didn't have a formal language. All calculations etc. were done with a domino kind of "connect the dots" type deal.

I'll be interested to see if someone has some new information. Thanks for jumpin in Lee.

hj

[Lee Smith]

That's the way I remember it too. Lines between cells?

Lee

[CaelC]

I think they were at MacWorld SF in 2000. I talked to the resident Guru and told him I develop in FMP and asked him to tell me why I might want to use Helix.

His response funnily enough was something like, If you use FileMaker, why would you want to use Helix? I expected him to try to win me over or something but he didn't. When I pressed him he gave me the full demo ... about 20 minutes worth.

It seems like it was "Object Oriented" if that is the right term. You drag and drop fields on the screen and then define what they are to do.

I remember it didn't have a calculation field per se but that you defined some sort of routines that accomplished the same thing but in a round about fashion.

I think when you relate files to each other, you draw a line from one to the other and then define what that "line" does.

It was almost like you were building a flow chart and definining what the objects on the flow chart were to do and how they were to react to one another.

He claimed it was the first relational database system for Mac and based on his timeline that he provide, I would concur.

Overall, it seemed like a foreign and cumbersome way to work if you understand databases ... maybe for people that don't understand basic database concepts could create in it since they wouldn't have preconceived notions of how it should work.

I left the booth wondering why I had bothered pressing him into a demo and thinking I should of taken his initial advice "why use Helix when you use FMP"?

I found there web site but didn't bother reading any of it: http://www.helixtech.com

Cael.

[RobStavis]

The subject got posted over to the Helix List (see helixtech.com for details), so I'll take this on.

Helix RADE is a very flexible program for creating single and multi-user databases that can be as pretty (see e.g.

http://datapixel.net/opinion/2002/screens/helix_osx_screens.html) or as complex (I'll step up to the plate on this one with our MacNICU system which is used for minute-to-minute nursing and physician charting on our patients in our neonatal intensive care unit) as one can imagine.

Helix is entirely driven by logic -- there is no code that's visible to the designer. Everything is an object represented by a icon, and everything is point, click, and connect. The entire database is called a "Collection" and database files are called "Relations." A Collection can have as many Relations as one needs. Fields are objects that are dragged into the Relation window -- they are named by conventional selecting and typing on the name, the same as one would do with any file or folder. There are multiple field types and a selection is made by clicking the choice when the field is created. "Abaci" are also part of the relation. These Abaci are logical statements built by dragging arrows to connect "tiles" which encapsulate the code. So, for example, there is an "If-Then-Else" tile. A calculation or field that ends up with a boolean value is plugged into the If hole. Then the value of this tile is whatever is in the Then hole (if true) or the Else hole (if false). (Or, if the boolean is undefined, the result of the If-Then-Else is undefined.) Helix provides about 120 types of tiles that deal with arithmetic, trig, text, logic, date-time, documents -- I've never had a problem that couldn't be addressed with these tiles.

The holes in the tiles are filled by fields, other tiles, other abaci, or typed in text. Abaci and fields in one Relation can be "Looked Up" from another, so relationships between the various Relations can be easily established using any sort of key that is desired. Helix also allows for counting or grabbing maximum and minimum values in other relations so that everything can be pulled together.

Templates are drawn in the Relations and can be used for data entry or display or lists. There are conventional basic drawing tools to make the templates. Helix supports subforms as well.

Views are the display forms for the templates, and data can be very flexibly queried by a variety of techniques.

Helix uses "Sequences" to power buttons that are placed on the templates. These sequences cause a series of actions to occur which may involve additional forms, enter functions, delete functions, print functions, etc. Helix can move data from one relation to another using a "Post" function.

By creating "Users," the end user can be totally isolated from the development environment, and a database impervious to user-error (but never impervious to designer error) can be built. In our Neonatal NICU, I can assure you that the nurses and doctors deal with nothing other than logically layed out forms, with buttons with clear labels -- there are no hidden menus, or other functions that require training before the system can be used. In our environment, we sometimes have agency nurses come in, and they can start using the system in 10 minutes.

The beauty of Helix is that the real guts of database functions are all buried so that someone like me, a logical person with no knowledge, interest, or desire to learn actual programming languages, can build a very robust database. Helix is just like the Mac -- point, click, select, type a little, and never see the insides (at least before OS X).

Helix is one of those absolutely great programs that has suffered from poor management. Early in its history, it had a substantial user base, but it has hobbled along for years now with a declining but dedicated and talented group of users and developers. Ownership has changed several times, but there has been no sustained investment. There is a great deal of hope now in the Helix community because several superior database developers have taken over the day-to-day operations, and they are now making Helix work economically and pumping sales right back into development. They have already accomplished some major improvments and we expect release of an OS X version in the not too distant future. A cross-platform version remains a goal, and wil come to fruition at some point.

If you're looking for a useful, easy to learn tool, check out the web site at helixtech.com. The commentaries I've read indicate that Helix is different from other tools, and I can imagine that someone fully fluent in one system may have difficulty seeing the Helix paradigm. But once the basics are understood, the picture becomes very clear very quickly -- I think this is a program that makes good on the claim of a very short and quick learning curve. Of course, learning to think logically and deign well may take a little longer!

Rob Stavis, MD

Bryn Mawr and Lankenau Hospitals

Bryn Mawr/Wynnewood, PA

[email protected]

[RobStavis]

I messed up the URL for the prettiest Helix database I've seen:

http://datapixel.net/opinion/2002/screens/helix_osx_screens.html

Sorry about that.

Rob Stavis

[lucidlee]

As there are not many opportunities to respond to this question I've provided a comprehensive answer.

As a longtime Helix developer I'd like to comment on my experience taking up FileMaker development. Firstly though, a few market-oriented comments. The history of Helix closely parallels that of the Macintosh in many ways . It started out as a breakthrough product with a paradigm that got many things right first time but was overtaken by competitors with superior business skills (and perhaps lesser technical nous). A shortlist of firsts show this:

1st WYSIWYG relational db on any platform. This meant no coding, just point and shoot

1st Client/Server RDBMS on any pc and it offered full referential integrity across the network with row level record locking.

1st pc db to offer transaction logging. There is an early 1980s video showing the CEO pulling the plug on a Mac while a transaction is in progress and then showing how Helix recovers it after a restart

1st pc RDBMS to offer BLOB support.

In the 1990s it lost its way when under the stewardship of some short-sighted management but is now on an upward curve after being taken over by people who understand what developers want and users need. So Helix is alive and well in the same way that the Macintosh is alive and well - just underfunded. Now to make some technical comparisons of the objects/icons in Helix and their FM equivalents:

Collections: FileMaker has no equivalent to this as it stores each table in its own file. Helix stores all content (data and structure) in one file. The collection icon, when double clicked, opens up to show three types of icons: Users, Sequences and Relations.

Users: These icons allow one to setup prototype users, giving them access to forms and sequences and controlling various permissions. The FMP Access password structure is equivalent but very clumbsy and limited by comparison.

Sequences: Similar in concept to Scripts but with the advantage of being globally accessible to all tables. You never write scripts 'blind' as you do in FMP. That is, to accomplish a transaction spanning multiple files you don't need to write (and debug!) a script in each file.

Relations: Same as an FMP File or SQL Table except it contains tools and structures that support the data. A Relation contains these Icons: Field, Abacus, Index, Form, Query, View, Post.

Fields: Similar to FMP except for an explicit Boolean type and Helix defines an Abacus icon instead of a Calculation field. I should say I find FMPs approach to Boolean data very ambiguous.

Abaci: Equivalent to Calculations except there is no typing. Everyting in Helix is drag and drop/point and shoot except for labelling icons. Abaci consist of 'tiles' which connect together using arrows and holes. In FMP I'm always wishing there was a Calculation equivalent of this tile: Sub Min [ 'date' ] for [ customer ] = [ 'mike' ] in Relation [ invoice ]

Index: A 'solidified' sort in FMP. Because its a separate object you can restructure it independantly of any View (Layout) that its used on and it can be attached to any number of Views.

Query: A solidifed Find in FMP. Also can be edited separately from the View(s)

Template: Equivalent to Layout mode. Templates can be designed as a single record form or by encloseing all fields in a 'repeating rectangle' made to produce a listing report template. Such a listing template can be placed on any other template larger than itself thus creating a subform template. Such templates can be nested as deeply as you dare and data easily editable. This feature is much more intuitive and powerful than FMPs portals, however overall the FMP tools for layout are much more sophisticated and flexible giving the edge for most form design. Helix does however imlemplement conditional colour control over data and objects. So buttons can appear or disappear and text will change colour according to data entered and calculated.

Post: No FMP equivalent other than a combination of relationships, scripts, layouts and calculations the Post icon is also attached to the View icon and is triggered by either a button, data entry , print or export. Best described by an example. You have Inventory and Invoice Items relations (files). Design a system that allows you to decrement inventory whenever a sale is made. Inventory starts at 10. Sell 5 widgets. The inventory is 5. Change your mind and go back to the sale. Change it to 3. That means increment the inventory to 10, then decrement it to 7. Now how much code and time did you spend to achieve this in FMP? In Helix, one Post icon and about 5 minutes.

Views: Equivalent to Browse mode. Helix uses a View to combine a template, query and index to allow data entry and reporting.

Supporting tools: Helix comes with separate utilities to verify and repair corrupotion in data and structure as welll as compress the database file. They seem more complete than FMP.

Debugging and Documentation: Helix can dump database documentation at the relation and collection level. This is similar to FMD . What is glaringly missing from FMP and FMD is a feature in Helix called Get Info and modelled on the Mac Finder feature. Selct any icon in Helix type Command-I and it will list every icon in the collection that references it. Double click on any icon in the list and it opens up for editing or Command double click and it presents a list of refernces to it. In short, you can traverse and edit the entire icon hierarchy from within the database!

The irony here is that I recently bought FMD v6 and Analyzer 3.0, mistakenly thinking I would get a system that I could develop in and that could be documented in the same way as my Helix application whose feature set has frozen for about 10 years. Imagine my surprise and disappointment when I did my first DDR, loaded it into Analyzer and discoverd that 1) Analyzer can't properly anayse FMD v6 and 2) the drill down capability is nowhere near as useful as in Helix. For this reason alone I must say that Helix is a far faster development environment, although I'm sure there are developers out there who could show me ways to overcome its limitations.

This has been a somewhat biased response as I've sought to describe FileMaker in Helix terms thus leaving out of the picture those features in FMP for which Helix has no answer. Let me make some amends here:

Helix doesn't do Windows, or Linux (but it once did DEC VMS)

Helix doesn't do SQL, ODBC, JDBC or XML

Helix does TCP/IP but its a little buggy

Helix doesn't do AppleScript,though there is limited AppleEvents support

Helix doesn't do extensions or plug-ins but some brave souls have procuded same anyway

Helix doesn't know about serial I/O ie no modems/fax etc

Helix can dump HTML but its limited but one of its creators has gone on to produce Qilan

Helix has great control over import/export of text files but chokes on proprietary formats (Excel, Word merge etc)

In summary, Helix is a great product for 1992, fast in development and use by single or small workgroups who don't need to publish to the web. Its interface is a relic of 1986 but the underlying paradigm, like the Macintosh's, hits the trifecta of useabilty, functionality and fun to use right between the eyes. And its the fastet RADE I know of.

I love it and look forward to all of its shortcomings being resolved soon. Keep your eye on http://www.helixtech.com - and http://www.qilan.com as a superior alternative to Lasso

Thanks for reading this far and hope it helps.

lee

[Rangoon]

I want to thank you guys for the in depth information on Helix. Through the years I have worked with 4D, FoxPro, Omnis and of course FMP and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I

[DozerHozer]

I too am a long time Helix user and have dabbled in FMPro from time to time. Once, when Helix's future was uncertain, I spent a consderable amount of time trying to make the move to FM. Since others have done a good job of going into the detailed differences in the features, I'll talk more in broad generalities about my experiences.

First, I found that FM is certainly easier to get started with than Helix. The model is common to many databases - use a dialog to define fields and their attributes, then assemble them on forms to layout entry or list views. The Helix model of each field, template, view, index, etc. being an object and icon of its own is something of a stumbling block for many new users. However, once that paradigm shift is made (I won't really call it a learning curve) the Helix model seems to me to be much more straightforward. In FM I often found myself in what I'd call "Dialog-Hell" :-) This is where you drill down though dialog after dialog only to find that the feature you are looking for is buried deep in some other dialog-path. I image that, with enough use, this becomes second nature and is not a problem.

What I did find is that it is very easy to build quick flat-file databases such as the average user might use to keep track of CDs, Video tapes, etc. In fact, its so quick and easy that I used it to create a simple database for tracking bugs and features in my development efforts for Helix projects. For that kind of thing its quicker than Helix.

And I know from looking at available FM solution downloads that many people use it for more powerful relational database solutions such as invoicing and accounting. However, when I tried move to FM from Helix, I found myself coming up against roadblocks as I got into the more complex constructs. It was a few years ago so I don't remember the details, but I did call FileMaker's tech support several times only to be told that "You can't do that in FM".

I guess my overall impression is that, once you've learned Helix's basics, it scales up very well to be able to handle some VERY complex solutions. On the other Hand, FM is easier at the low end of the scale, but the difficulty rises rapidly as the complexity of the solution rises. Eventually, FM reaches a point where the amount of effort or work arounds required to do something, just isn't worth it. That point is reached in Helix a LOT farther along the complexity curve.

Don't get me wrong, Helix has its limitations too, as others have pointed out. One of my favoite FM features that Helix does not have is the fields on list views that expand or contract depending on the contents of the fields. This allows each record to take more or less space on the view as required. But, while there are several specifics of FM that I lust for -) the bottom line is that I can create complex databases in VERY little time in Helix. Using it as a RADE environment I can create a menu/window/dialog application that looks and feels VERY much like a real application, really quickly and without writing a line of code. Its that power that has me hooked!

I'm really glad to see that Helix development is back on track. I'm hoping many of the features Helix lacks will start appearing in the coming year, making Helix a real contender in the database market.

[Rangoon]

Hi Dozer,

Thanks for your reply. I

[lucidlee]

The short answer is $5,930 - made up of $200 for the developer tool - Helix RADE 5.1, $450 for the Server and 88 clients at $60ea.

The long answer is here: http://www.helixtech.com/pricing/pricelist51.html

A few other observations I should have made earlier:

FM commits data to a cache transparently as you enter it, so in some sense you aren't aware. Helix requires an explicit ENTER (not just a RETURN) to commit a record and of course this act can be usd to trigger subsidiary processing such as posting data to other tables. I find this certainty with data entry much more reassuring and understandable than FM although maybe regular FM users don't see this as an issue.

Also in user mode Helix can maintain a transaction log which is periodically written to the database file thus reducing opportunities for corruption and making recovery easier

Unlike FM which allows only one layout at a time to represent a file contents, Helix will allow any number of views. Thus you have the ability to see and edit two or more records from the same table or have a list in view that is updated the instant a record is committed.

In FM I can directly edit a record in a list. In Helix I must double click on the record to open an editing form. I do love that FM has Sliding Objects. Helix reports can waste a lot of paper. In fact there are a few Helix users who swap data from Helix to Filemaker just so they can produce some reports.

And of course, now you want to test the software yourelf: http://www.helixtech.com/versions/demoreq.html

And to all the Helix users who gave up because the owner just wouldn't listen: Come Back! The new owners think different and care about your needs.

lee

[Rangoon]

Hi Lee and thanks for the reply

The price differential is significant. Have you used Helix long enough to have a good feel for platform integrity. I have a feeling it must be stable based on the posts. But what about over a network? I understand from the posts that Helix is restructuring and I hope they do well in that regard, but what about tech support. Is the product well supported and do the tech folks seem to know their stuff.

hj

[DozerHozer]

Foodsman:

As for stability, Helix is very solid. As was mentioned, Helix can be set up with a log file that records all transactions so that if the system crashes, plug is pulled, etc. before the user did a save, all transactions up to that point are re-entered automatically when the database is next launched.

There are also a couple of utilities included with it that should be used regularly to scan for and clean up major or minor problems that may creep in due to bad bits on a disk, cosmic rays, phase of the moon - whatever :-)

And if all else fails (which can happen with any database) and file corruption occurs which cannot be fixed locally, you can send your database into Helix tech support and, for a reasonable price, they will fix it if at all possible. Think of it as sending in a disk drive to DriveSavers after you dropped it in your fish tank.

And, tech support for Helix development is very knowledgeable, helpful and responsive.

Stability is something I generally don't worry about with Helix. However, anyone thinking of moving to Helix (especially in a big way such as you've described with your 88 clients) is the long term outlook for the company. I am a strong supporter of Helix, love it, and would love to see more folks using it. The more who use it, the better its chances for the future. However, I'm also a realist. And over the years, Helix's fortunes have been a roller coaster ride. Right now, its prospects look good and the people steering the ship are "true believers" who will do everything they can to ensure a bright future. But it will take some time for them to prove themselves capable of persevering for the long haul, and having the business and marketing savvy to make it work.

If I had a client/server app with an installed base of 88 users and I was considering moving to a new database platform, I would consider Helix a good choice technically, but a bit risky on the business side. Moving to ANY new database is a huge investment in learning curve and transitional development. Only you can decide whether it is worth it.

If you're interested, I would suggest purchasing the RADE piece and try your hand on a small project. Work your way up, learning some of the more advanced concepts before making a decision. While the manual is good for a starting reference, the Helix List is where you'll find lots of people willing and able to help you get a leg up, whether its beginners help, or learning some of Helix's more powerful features.

[lucidlee]

hj

You asked about networking. Very stable over appletalk but TCP/IP has some bugs and shortcomings, the most obvious of which is that the Helix Client must be outside of any firewall you might set up. Having said that parts of the HelixTech website are served by a Helix database via an AppleScript utility called CallHelix so such bugs clearly don't prevent the database doing its job over the internet. There are also some users with offices linked by various levels of connection (Dialup, ADSL, T1) who function quite happily. A question on the Helix list will get you the good oil.

I should mention that Helix (RADE, server and client) currently only runs in OSX in Classic mode but is very happy there and in fact surprisingly faster than under OS9 - which is a mystery. The next version of Helix, which we expect sometime this year will be OSX compliant and have better TCP/IP.

Beyond that versions for Windows and Linux are planned as is also the modernisng of the interface and integration of the current set of buzzwords.

As to corporate stability I regard HelixTech the company as being a startup with the benefit of a mature product to sell. Its tech support consists of a couple of developers each with well over a decade of experience. The Helix List at <[email protected]> contains the hard core developers and Larry Atkin, one of the two original creators of the program and also its web counterpart Qilan, keeps a watching brief.

Lee

[Rangoon]

I have been working with the demo version of RADE over the last few days, just to get a feel for it. Although it is very different from what I

[macdr1]

Hi everyone,

I used to work at Odesta Corporation (who started Helix) in the Chicago area - from 1987 top 1989, as a Tech Support Rep. I answered questions (on the phone) from developers and "regular" users all day, every day. I was there from Helix to Double Helix to Double Helix II. It was my first foray into the Mac world, much less databases. I learned so much there, but it was a program that couldn't, and wouldn't, keep up with the new technology. 4D passed it by rather quickly, then FileMaker. I am now a full-time FMP developer, having given up on Helix years ago, then given up on 4D.

As for the new Helix, I don't know anything about it - this is the first I've heard of Helix 6. Since Odesta was sold, and moved around the Chicago area for a while, then to Texas, jeez, I lost interest and contact.

If anyone would like to know what it was like way back then, or who has fond memories of talking to me on the phone, please write.

E-mail is [email protected]

Thanks,

Gary Kravitz

[BobWeaver]

Okay. Now that that mystery is solved. How many people remember OverVue?

[lucidlee]

hj

Interface and polish are the candy that sells the apple, for sure. From the point of view of personal satisfaction we developers of course care only about the process of developing which is why we pick a tool that suits our personal work idiosyncrasies. I'm talking here about how a choice is made when all of the technical criteria are pretty much covered by the tools on offer.

So Helix suits many people with a visual point and shoot, no boundaries type of mentality - right brained maybe. Individuals definitely. Helix appeals outright to the DIY person. Developers tend to get sidelined unless the project gets too big or too hard. Its a bit like what the original Mac was all about - "we put all the smarts in the box, close it up and present it such that you can be productive without all of those hangers on". Some might say that Microsft exploited the marketing flaw in this approach by providing consultants all the work they could eat with products that needed much more support - thereby winning the attention of influential middlemen. Apple and Helix have now seen the error in that I believe.

As to visual interface its true that Helix is rudimentary and if version 6 and 7 don't don't deal with this comprehensively there won't be v8 (and maybe not a v7), But some people get around it as it is anyway - visit this site and see why <http://datapixel.net/database.html> - but take your Photoshop skills with you! Paticularly check out anything "liquid". Also see Evalix on that site and compare it with Waves in Motion's Analyzer 3.0 for comprehensiveness. Frankly I don't know how it does its work on the DDR that Helix produces. Which remoinds me I should write to WIM and ask yet again when Analyzer will work properly with FM Developer 6.

Cheers

Lee

PS Yes, I remember OverVue - used it for while before Helix came out and my needs for true relationality overtook it - its now called Panorama from ProVue I think.

[lucidlee]

Hi Gary

I do remember you although I dealt more with George McGorry, then later Dee Keyser and Steve Keller in that time. You must have been there while they were developing the illfated but very significant ODMS II - the product that Dan Cheifetz and co. took away with them to OpenText Corp leaving Helix behind and foundering.

Knowing what I do about that period I'm surprised that you would say they didn't want to keep up with 4D and FileMaker. They certainly made a tactical error in going flat out for the document management/workflow market and ignoring their established Helix base but even then they were innovating - it just didn't get into Helix beyond the BLOB technology. Instead it went into a total rewrite as ODMS II.

Cheers

Lee

[Guest]

Through the years I have worked with 4D, FoxPro, Omnis and of course FMP and they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Foodsman... FWIW, I think that MySQL and PostgresSQL can be very useful on MacOSX. It is possible to write an Objective C API that wraps the database calls. You can then build the screens using the Interface Builder and display the data using the TableView.

[HarryGlos]

Hi Gandolph,

RE: It is possible to write an Objective C API that wraps the database calls.

Seems like a lot of work for the rewards achieved. But you're right, it's a way to do it!

Harry

[Rangoon]

I agree, its a lot of work. PostgresSQL can I hear an "ouch" from the crowd.

hj

[Guest]

Seems like a lot of work for the rewards achieved. But you're right, it's a way to do it!

Harry

Don't hold your breath, but I have published the source code for a basic generic Objective C database API against MySQL and continue to work on it when I can.

[FMatHome]

I just bought FMP7 and will be migrating my Helix solutions over to it in the coming months. I'm hoping that I end up finding suitable alternatives for the way I'm used to working in Helix. I have a couple "newbie" type of questions that hopefully someone can quickly answer. ..

1) Are there keystrokes to navigate to the first, last, next, or previous record? In Helix this was Command 1, 2, 3, & 4, respectively?

2) In a listing will I be able to assign a click (or double click) to call up the individual record that is referenced in the list?

Larry

[cjaeger]

>1) Are there keystrokes to navigate to the first, last, next, or previous record? In Helix this was Command 1, 2, 3, & 4, respectively?

Why not make a script with Command- 1 --> Go to first record, .. etc.

>2) define a button that does just that. leave it to single click, though. ("Go to Layout "Details" ..)

This is basic FileMaker functionality available from the very first version.