Next version

[John2710]

Are there any news when Filemaker is planing to launch next vesion of Filemaker? It is more then a year since last revision!!!

[Søren Dyhr]

These kind of questions usually pile up around Devcons, but the question is rather what you would expect happen in the next version.

By and large isn't it going to happen that you can get even more carried away developing without propper planning, and then cram out better solutions. Usually isn't it which chisel a sculptor picks in his tools arsenal, but what he does with it ... so if you way of development is based on inadequate knowledge and methods, aren't the next revaluations anything for you anyway!

Usually are the arriving features kind of suburban sprawl for the developer who needs tightening up of inner algorithms at first sight, but the learning-curve will then over time reveal new methods to achieve the same, and some developers have more intuition in getting these rapidly than others, and some are even greatly inspired by actually jumping hoops.

Expectations to be spoon-fed with the next version comming is IMHO a daft endevour, because filemakers strategic focus is still the workgroups productivity - and not the urge to be something for engineers, because the number of roamers in that marked is overwhelming, and hardly any of perhaps the most ingenious makes any real money.

--sd

[John May - Point In Space]

It sounds like no new version until next year. Doesn't seem like a big deal, though, as 9 is really just getting to be a mature product and I'm not in a hurry to start debugging a new version again. I'd rather see them continue building on the existing version with point revs.

- John

[John2710]

Lately when i read you post I am asking myself is there something wrong with me or there is really nobody who sees that filemaker is lacking some key features which are already integrated in almost every major development software. I have an opinion that most visitors here are full of theory but in real life no one was trying to make something huge with FM like we do. Just look at posts...most of them are question which are suitable for beginners. Fact is that although Filemaker is great software there are some features which would make it best. Point of software development is to make real life situations quicker and easier for users.....and with this progress of FM I think that soon it will not be able to compete with other database development programs.

[John May - Point In Space]

FileMaker certainly has its specific audiences, and I won't disagree there are features that it could use. But there will also always be other audiences that wish FileMaker was more targeted to them, and other features that folks will always want added.

What I don't want to see is another engine rewrite that brings us back to square one stability-wise. FileMaker Server has finally started to approach "enterprise level", and I'd hate to see it lose that ground.

- John

[Søren Dyhr]

with this progress of FM I think that soon it will not be able to compete with other database development programs.

Why should it (FM) do that at all, it does in it's own realm have in learning curve as flat ....never ever have been achieved with Access. If mom and pop shops can't build something without the intervention of a scientist, is the battle lost ...there is there no point trying to compete in an otherwise crowded marked, in a me-too'ish approach.

It's not just filemaker, the owner (Apple) have same strategy, not to dance to the beat of the technology drum, but instead make something you can continue wrap around their present marked segment, and do that better than any intruder/newcomer!

I can only say that you have been unfortunate enough to neglect the warnings, filemaker doesn't really scale anywhere beyound 250 users, unless you are really really crafty.

--sd

[Vaughan]

"I have an opinion that most visitors here are full of theory but in real life no one was trying to make something huge with FM like we do."

You'd be surprised. My organisation is just completing a 4 year, $200,000 development project using FMP. Is that "huge" enough for you?

But you're right, FMP isn't necessarily ideal for this. It doesn't really allow version control, nor is it really suitable for team development. On the other hand, had the project been done in SQL it would probably have been a $1,000,000 project.

So the question then becomes: are FMP's trade-offs worth the 80% reduction in development costs? Or even 50% reduction?

[John2710]

S.Dyhr: " can only say that you have been unfortunate enough to neglect the warnings, filemaker doesn't really scale anywhere beyound 250 users, unless you are really really crafty." Where is the point of this sentence. Have you ever thought that maybe we are not making a 250user+ project but 20users x 1000companies project.

Vaughn: I am very happy that someone is doing something real big, I hope you succeed. I know that FM is cheaper for development but we can not say that is cheap for customer who wants to buy you product with FM included. Also why do we have to install plugins so that we can have all the functionalities which are standard for other development software. FM is indeed in-group development software ... but it could be much more with a little bit different price policy (maybe a thin client ) ... and some new features which it really lacks.

[Vaughan]

Even buying retail price licenses and plug-ins, FileMaker Pro and FM Server is still orders of magnitude cheaper than any other client/server database product. The problem is, people don't compare it to SQL, they compare it to Excel.

[Søren Dyhr]

Have you ever thought that maybe we are not making a 250user+ project but 20users x 1000companies project.

...as well as:

we can not say that is cheap for customer who wants to buy you product with FM included

Ah! You mean foilwrapped solutions, it's actually part of the workgroup approach that the developer delivers services and not (near) physical storable products. This product is for independent developers providing services or inhouse developers - if you wish to sell something storable, must it be plugins!

If you however turn to this:

http://www.runrev.com/products/related-software/fmpro-migrator-developer/

...could you depart from the confines of the Filemaker strategy, provided you are willing to put the effort into patching up the stuff mistaken for being something else by the conversion tool, but still be keeping Filemaker as vehicle to convey your thoughts to the software design.

--sd

[John2710]

Soren Dyhr: I really do not understand what do you mean with your poetic english .... you really do not see that FM lacks os some essential functions and tools which almost any serious developer needs if he is making foilwraped or in-group development for one or many customers. Get to serious work, stop pasting links and no-meaning comments which do not help or make any sense.

[LaRetta]

...and with this progress of FM I think that soon it will not be able to compete with other database development programs.

Actually, the opposite is happening. As for whether it is successfully used for enterprise solutions ... I suggest that you check your facts before making blanket statements you know nothing about. There are many, many very large corporations using FileMaker quite successfully.

I agree that it lacks some things we would like; particularly their radio buttons (look like a child drew them) but FM is rapid development tool which can't be touched (for the price) and that is very appealing to businesses. It even allows small to mid-sized businesses the ability to have their own program designed. As matter of fact, FM developers are in very high demand because of its increased popularity.

I have an opinion that most visitors here are full of theory but in real life no one was trying to make something huge with FM like we do. Just look at posts...most of them are question which are suitable for beginners.

Do NOT separate the Developers from the people asking the questions here ... they are one and the same. Those asking questions are usually newer Developers in the making, not some hon-yok bunch of back-yard mechanics. FYI, even advanced Developers devour the information here on FM Forums and I ask questions as do many other developers.

It is one thing to say FM can use improving; no doubt there ... and it is improving every version. It's another to say it is only for beginners and small businesses and cannot possibly be used for SERIOUS development.

LaRetta

[John2710]

Dear LaRetta: I think FMs problem is not in ugly radio buttons.. have you ever thought about script triggers ( on exit or enter field ), full menu control, customizing right mouse click, possibility of putting layouts in folder groups (like scripts) ... this kind of things would make FM superb. I know almost all this is possible with plugins ... but why not native.

Why is this just rapid development toll instead also full function development tool.

I am not first developer who has thought about this ... there was an article about what FM needs in ISOFMmagazine in year 97 ( 11 years ago ) and there are still functions which were not included in FM. Link Does this look like FM is listening developers or following what others have or can offer?

About forum. I understand that there are beginners on forum and this is very good. But I do not like when someone is giving comments from which I can see that he has not developed anything serious. Otherwise he would agree that there are things missing or could be made betted.

But do not get me wrong ... I like FM.

[comment]

Instead of giving marks to others, why don't you post something useful yourself? I see that so far all that we've had from you is:

FM9 is a disgrase. (July 2007)

I have serious thoughts about canceling Filemaker as our primary software deveoping tool. (December 2007)

I have found 4D development tool. Has anyone tried it? It seems much more advanced and easier to use than FM! (March 2008)

I don't know why you are so eager for the next version - I think it's a safe bet you'll find it disappointing too.

[John2710]

Comment: I just react to other users comments. Is it wrong to express my opinion?

If I understand correctly forums are for users who seek help, express opinions and all sorts of useful stuff.

As I said before, I like FM but i think that with some upgrades it could be superb development tool and this would be useful for all developers.

[comment]

Opinions are one thing, personal attacks another.

[John2710]

Comment: Read again this topic from beginning and please quote my attack. Read first and second post etc...

[comment]

That's hardly necessary. If you really need it to be said, all your remarks regarding other members experience (or lack of), or the way they choose to express THEIR opinion, are way out of line.

[John2710]

OK I appologize for everything I said regarding other users.

Now ... do you or any other user has any comments on what I said about that article in FM magazine? Or any comment on that article.

[Genx]

Not really...

I used to be like you and wanted FM to do anything and everything and there are a few feature's I'd still kill for and I still don't agree with FM's general attitude toward developers and partners. That being said, it's still got to be the best and most affordable RAD tool out there. Not to mention that it's an awesome tool for prototyping / POC's.

You will see a lot of developers on these forums requesting features. And some of them are always added, and some inevetibly not worked in - there's only so much they can put in one version. Just remember, the more features they add, the more effort they need to put in to keep it useable for their core market which isn't hardcore developers.

If the tool doesn't fit the mould, don't use it. Prototype a solution with FM, get some funding and have it redeveloped... a prototype beats a development plan any day.

I'm not going to say I'd try something on Vaughan's scale due to continuous fears of hidden corruption (founded or otherwise) but I'm sure they're using brilliant backup and versioning methods.

[sidenote]

If anyone is doing extremely high end development, you might seek out a little extra insurance policy: Double-Take -> Replicates changes on the byte level over IP as they're applied to disk and as a bonus takes snap shots on whatever basis you specify.

[/sidenote]

Anyway, please stop having a go at Soren - he is anything but a beginner, he just enjoys having philosophical discussions. A general hint is to notice a member's post count before you start looking your nose down at them.

Insulting forum members is not a good way to start out (trust me I know as do some of the people in this post ;p )

[Colin Keefe]

OK I appologize for everything I said regarding other users.

Now ... do you or any other user has any comments on what I said about that article in FM magazine? Or any comment on that article.

Sure. It's actually a fun little archaeology experiment, digging through Matt's Petrowsky's proposed features and seeing which have come into the product since 1997...and which were implemented in a different way.

I guess I'll say a few things:

1. A good portion of the features on this list have been incorporated into the product.

2. A slew of other features NOT on this list have been incorporated into the product.

3. Some of the features on this list haven't made it into the product yet.

4. Some of the features we've asked for since 1997 haven't made it in.

5. Some of the features on the list I frankly see no need for, since other related features address the problem.

This is an 11 year old wish list. It's interesting, but holding it up against the current feature set of FileMaker 9 doesn't really say very much.

There are a bunch of things we've all asked for that haven't made it into the product yet, and I think we all experience some frustration when a new rev comes out and our # 1 item on our personal wish list isn't present.

But I think it's a testament to the product line that the developer base is growing, not shrinking. I notice that you haven't switched to another development environment, John. Neither have I, and I'm not likely to.

I will say that, based on prior experience, the things that we complain about constantly have eventually made into the product line in one form or another. So we can probably expect that the things we're still complaining about today will show up in a future revision :

[comment]

I agree. Just for fun, I divided Matt's wish-list into three groups:

Implemented:

• Remembered record position.

• Extensible plug-in architecture.

• Temp File/Index Caching.

• Contains operator

• Hot text list selections.

• Multiple data windows.

• Single file with multiple tables.

• Hierarchical value lists.

• Clairvoyance implementation.

• Validation options for globals.

• Export extensions.

• Field reference file naming.

• Command Keys.

• Smart scrollable areas.

• Scalable windows and multiple windows.

• Window positioning control.

• Vertical orientation of radio buttons and check boxes.

• Show Message overhaul.

• Global manipulation in layout headers.

• Vertical rotation of text blocks.

• Copy & Paste ruler.

• 256 Color palette

• New Font function.

• Sortable portals.

• ScriptMaker non modal

• Portable scripts

• Modifier keys.

• Find and replace.

• Open file using password.

• Rework of internal security.

• Auto enter reset.

• Extended database reports

• Full menu control.

• ScriptMaker script step on/off switch.

• AppleScript recordable.

Partly implemented or possible in other ways (not incl. plugins):

• Indexed Globals.

• Internal field sorting.

• Auto-formating field options.

• Custom delimiters.

• RTF Export support.

• Record highlighting.

• Increased Set Field variable control.

• Clock watching.

• Multiple selections of script steps.

• Default script steps.

• Field sensitive searching.

Not implemented:

• New internal clipboard.

• Field length setting.

• Mode switch control.

• Platform standard graphic representations of check boxes and radio buttons

• Tear off palettes.

• Gradient support.

• Shift select multiple records.

• New ASCII Functions.

• Horizontal scrollbars.

• Shift selectable portal rows.

• Drag and drop button assignments

• Event based scripts.

• Calculation based triggers.

• Watch For Key script step.

• Calculated finds.

• Field synchronization between files.

• Synchronized value lists.

• Auto field copy.

I'd be very happy if MY wish-list had the same rate of implementation.

---

(*) I have left out a few requests that I didn't understand or that became irrelevant due to OS X.

[John2710]

This was written 11 years ago ... this means that there was a need for this functions even 11 years ago. Do you remember on what kind of computers we were working back there and how "advanced" the computer technology was?!.

Todays hardware and software is much more advanced and also customers. If you want to be in front in your business you have to have the latest technology and knowledge available.

Fact is that Filemaker today does not offer the functions we needed 11 years ago.

[LaRetta]

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt." The more you talk, the worse it gets.

If you want to be in front in your business you have to have the latest technology and knowledge available.

Wow. I had to write this down. This is the most amazing information! I would have paid you thousands of dollars for such an uncannily brilliant observation.

Long's Law: Those who know the least will always know it the loudest.

I'm feeling philosophical today, Soren. :laugh2:

Edited July 22, 2008 by Guest

[Colin Keefe]

Fact is that Filemaker today does not offer the functions we needed 11 years ago.

These are the features Matt Petrowsky needed 11 years ago. I certainly am not going to burn my FM9 Advanced CD just because FileMaker Inc has had the audacity to never give me tear off palettes.

Why don't you ask Matt if he's stomped off in a huff since 1997? He's easily reachable at ISO Productions:

FileMaker Magazine website

By the way, 11 years ago I really needed my zip drive. God, I was dependent on that thing. Now when try to give it away on Craigslist, the only replies I get require that I DELIVER the darned thing to the respondent's doorstep.

That something was deemed necessary 11 years ago DOES NOT necessarily mean it's necessary today. And the things I want from FileMaker aren't even on the list you reference (though you do mention them elsewhere - event triggers and specifying fields with variables or some other method).

Edited July 22, 2008 by Guest

[Søren Dyhr]

Get to serious work, stop pasting links and no-meaning comments which do not help or make any sense.

I'm sorry it doesn't make any sense to you, say you have a bakery and wish to provide the service to deliver the bread to selected customers, would you immediately rush into the local garage and yell at them why the hell they not have a modified car with Hummer or Farrari specs. to facilitate you delivering needs.

Not even in brushed neighbourhoods would anyone really make notice if the vehicle their bread arrives in, not actually matches what they might have.

I think it's time to recognize that although better spec'ed tools exists could a tool eventhough easily be king in it's own segment, without the wish to be everyones universal tool. Have you ever thought what the expression "Jack of all trades, master of none ..." actually means?

To be honest is a developer centric tool, not really mass marked and the efforts that goes into the making unfortunately needs to pay the rents, salaries to highly skilled people etc. - Serious engineering and research are bound to have a cash-cow to pull things with. Only governments and companies which have a leading share of a mass marked can afford such luxury I'm afraid.

You have been fallen for one of the cheaper tricks, sometimes called the tennisracket lie or the portastudio ditto. It's back to what I wrote earlier - the tool is almost irrelevant if the need to get skills are neglected. Crafty and igneous people will always make spectacular things with what they can lay their hands on - no matter what marked the tool originally was intended to reside in. You have thought that the apparent flat learning curve of filemaker could make you cut corners, without having to learn anything at all.

--sd

[comment]

This was written 11 years ago ... this means that there was a need for this functions even 11 years ago.

No, all it means is that Matt Petrowsky thought there was need for them. With all due respect to Matt (and I'm sure in retrospect he would agree), some of these requests are unrealistic, some are unnecessary, and some are just plain ridiculous.

Anyway, I believe you have a misconception here: Filemaker's mission is to make money for its shareholders - not to implement Matt's wish-list (though they haven't done too badly on that front either).

---

EDIT: I posted this before reading Colin's post. I guess I was right when I said I agreed with him.

Edited July 22, 2008 by Guest

[Søren Dyhr]

Filemaker's mission is to make money for its shareholders - not to implement Matt's wish-list (though they haven't done too badly on that front either).

Succinct as usual! - and yes this is really what it is!

--sd

[Genx]

Just a prediction but this topic is going to go in circles. I advise you not to take whatever bait may come next.

[LaRetta]

Very wise, Alex, even if you ARE only 19.

LaRetta

a usual bait-taker

[John2710]

Abraham Lincoln once said, "Better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt." The more you talk, the worse it gets.

Wow. I had to write this down. This is the most amazing information! I would have paid you thousands of dollars for such an uncannily brilliant observation.

Long's Law: Those who know the least will always know it the loudest.

Comment: Do I have to take this as an attack?

LaRetta: I have also written down your quote of Abraham Lincoln since you do not have any.

So in your opinion the conclusion is that I and all other users who think that FM lacks of some key features are stupid or we do not know how to develop amazing software with features which Filemaker has to offer and best way for FM is that it stays in a state that currently is. Who needs more!?

[Colin Keefe]

So in your opinion the conclusion is that I and all other users who think that FM lacks of some key features are stupid or we do not know how to develop amazing software with features which Filemaker has to offer and best way for FM is that it stays in a state that currently is. Who needs more!?

There's a difference between wanting improvements (which we all very much want) and declaring FileMaker broken. Which is, frankly, what I hear you saying.

There are a couple of resolution paths here:

A. Make feature requests directly to FileMaker...

FileMaker Feature Request

They do incorporate feature requests into their decision making when it comes to what's going to make it into a next rev.

B. Switch to a development environment you feel is more appropriate for your situation.

[Colin Keefe]

Just a prediction but this topic is going to go in circles. I advise you not to take whatever bait may come next.

Oops. Bait taken. Where's my delete button?

[Søren Dyhr]

Very wise, Alex, even if you ARE only 19.

Haevn't he been so the last 4 years at least, or is he one of those born in a skipyear? 19*4 ... well hardly to believe either???

--sd

[LaRetta]

Me too, Colin! Hey, John, I WAS out of line with what I said although my quoting someone doesn't mean you have to take it personally. I did NOT call you a fool. I apologize for my implication. I have posted many times about features I want and I've sent them as Feature Requests. And sometimes I get downright angry at FileMaker for things which cause me hours of unnecessary work (like their poor import/export processes).

We get your point - you think FM is weak. But going on and on about it, and going over the same ground, doesn't help your case; it just makes people irritable at you. We are NOT stupid, ignorant people here ... we know the pros and cons of FileMaker (I would bet) more than you do! You aren't telling us anything new at all. So, the more you talk, the more it seems like you are just ranting to rant and flaring to flare. I suggest we do what Alex suggests and let this all go now. What's say? :smile2: