Basic changes to FM in 5.5?

Charlie · September 16, 2001

Filemaker seems to have devoted all of its time and effort to web issues in the latest releases, which I suppose is understandable. However, there are many areas of Filemaker that could use improvement. I'm still using 5.0v1 and wondered if anyone could tell me if any significant changes have come about in 5.5 that are not web-related. For instance:

BruceJ · September 16, 2001

I don't have an answer for you, but I have the same feelings. All the new bells and whistles seem to be targeted at web publishing.

I guess they know their market, but the whole web frenzy isn't what I'm after either. I'm an "old fashioned" networked database person myself.

David McKee (Protolight) · October 2, 2001

quote:

I don't have an answer for you, but I have the same feelings. All the new bells and whistles seem to be targeted at web publishing.

This BOOGLES my mind! When I read this, I was flabbergasted. I thought for sure people couldn't possibliy have this impression, but I see posting the new features list I compiled only to the mailing lists was a mistake. Here is a (partial) list I compiled a while ago.

Here's a list I made for the mailing lists. I think it shows that 5.5 is worth the upgrade price.

[apologies if the formatting gets nerfed]

================================ FileMaker Pro (FMP) 5.5 Feature Summary

Below is a helpful summary of what's new in FMP 5.5. This list is not all-inclusive, as it doesn't include features that were present in FMP 5.0, features overlooked by me, and some features for use with upcoming FM products (like FMS-server) which will be revealed/announced when the corresponding other product is released.

With each item is a simple reference phrase, followed with a short explaination of the feature refered to. This is sometimes followed with a short example by me, of the benefit of this change.

Categorization is based on my own personal criteria, as are all explainations. In addition, I marked each change based on what I personally think the audience was for each change:

[dev] = Developer oriented [is] = IS/IT Enterprise oriented [usr] = End-user oriented

As you'll note, the majority changes are developer oriented.

============== Major Changes -> ==============

Record by Record Access!!! [dev] [is] Access to record data (Browse, Edit, and/or Delete) can now be controlled by a calculation. {This provides the ability to control access to data on a record-by-record-per-user basis. This does not filter out the fact that denied records exist.}

Execute SQL!: [dev] Lets the users execute

Anatoli · October 3, 2001

Excellent!

Arin · October 4, 2001

quote:

Splash Screen reflects Unlimited: [is] When FMP is installed with an install code that activates the FMU functionality, the splash screen will reflect this.

David, are you saying that if I purchase 5.5 for OS X and use my install code from my MacOS 'classic' Unlimited 5, I can have OS X stability instead of having to worry that 9.1 is going to freeze-up while I'm having dinner, leaving my customers hanging yet again??

-Arin

**FYI - 9.1 has only hung once in the past 2-3 months, but once is still far to often, esp. if I'm out of town...

SteveB · October 4, 2001

I have reviewed my comments of earlier this week about upgrading to FM Dev 5.5 and David McKee's response. I would like to make the following points:

Charlie wrote:

quote:

• Ability to name styles of certain formats (such as a date or number format, so that you're not constantly setting them each time); or at least to change the default

• Ability to copy/paste script steps

• Ability to specify field-to-be-set by calculation rather than as a static list

• Conditional formatting

None of these features are supported in 5.5 as near as I can tell.

The only user interface improvement that I can find is the hand over button (or as I now call it "the Flying Finger").

I looked at every file on the CD and could find no documentation for the Database Design Report Template. I have been unable to determine what the fields DDR1 thru 32 mean. Without documentation, trying to modify the database Report to handle my complaints about not being able to find orphans still stands: This feature is INCOMPLETE and less than it could have or SHOULD have been.

David: You thought I was too harsh in my previous comments. You stated that I should have praised the FM developers for their efforts. I would have been less annoyed if the upgrade was $150 or $200, but I am very annoyed at $400 for an upgrade that I contend is half-baked. Virtually nothing that I've looked at (I don't have needs for Web related features, SQL and a few more) have they done good or better than good work.

The debugger is far less useful than it could have or SHOULD have been. There are a number of STATUS functions that don't work under some conditions. Whether this is a bug, a design flaw, or a design nightmare I am in no position to tell. However, they could have and SHOULD have fixed them.

Not saving custom colors, not being able to globally edit a script, not warning the developer when a layout to be deleted is used in some script somewhere, not being able to copy and paste script steps, not completely remember window settings (some do, some don't, none remember where the separators are, the drop-downs menus in the windows can't be resized let alone remembered), no "repeat last edit command" (like Word or EXCEL). The list goes on and on. Things that should take a few minutes instead take 30 or more because of missing features that virtually every other development tool has.

David, you better than most of us know that they should have invested some time and improved the External Plugin interface which is nothing short of crude.

] I still stand by my comments: This upgrade, for most of us, is a waste of money. If you are looking for interface features, development tools, general functionality improvements wait another 18 months!!!.

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Steveinvegas ]

SteveB · October 4, 2001

David, I eagerly waited almost 18 months between 5.0 and 5.5, and am disappointed in the final product. I am willing to bet that the majority of the developers on this forum would have been willing to forgo some of the features, like the SQL stuff, for an improvement in the stuff they do every day, such as being able to globally edit a script, or copy script steps between scripts. I believe that what I do is more mainstream, and the stuff they put in appeals to a much narrower segment. Sure, Anatoli and Capt Kurt and others will make use of these features, but they represent a minority.

If you were involved, I'm sorry that you feel insulted. The final product is still shoddy. C'mon, no documentation for the database reports? How are we supposed to know what all those fields are?

I really believe that most of the developers on this forum can forgo the upgrade. The stuff that would have made a big impact on development FM didn't do well or at all!!!!

LiveOak · October 4, 2001

I believe part of the reason the features are going in this direction is the market FMI is now trying to address. As FMI has grown larger, continued growth can only be achieved by selling large sites licenses. To sell these licenses, you must make corporate IS happy. Corporate IS people disqualify software if it doesn't have the features that the magazines they read say everything should have, web, ODBC, etc., even if they REALLY don't use these features. In think FMI's implementation of web and ODBC features confirms this. The actual features (at least at first) have been minimal, just enough to say that you have them and get the site license nod. This also explains why the big push to integrate with and emulate the corporate standard of "excellence", anything Microsoft.

-bd

SteveB · October 5, 2001

Live Oak:

You are right. FM seems to have decided to "sell the sizzle, not the steak". However, Corporate IS will always pooh-pooh anything that came from the MAC environment, or that doesn't say either IBM or Microsoft on the box. My own opinion, the upgrade not withstanding, is that FM does the job most of the time, with a lot less effort. Nevertheless, it can be maddingly frustrating to have to do the things we do day in and day out with a substandard development environment (which it really is).

David McKee (Protolight) · October 5, 2001

quote:

Sure, Anatoli and Capt Kurt and others will make use of these features, but they represent a minority.

Of the many lessons I've learned in listening to the developer community, is that many kinds of developers assume they are the "majority" but this is a vague claim to make. There are MANY groups of developers and I wouldn't making any size-estimations casually.

quote:

If you were involved, I'm sorry that you feel insulted. The final product is still shoddy.

You are entitled to your opinon, but I vehemently disagree. I accept your apology in the same spirit it was given. ; )

quote:

C'mon, no documentation for the database reports? How are we supposed to know what all those fields are?

So that invalidates the feature??? The field names are fully spelled out as are the script names. Honestly, it isn't that complex of a solution. It's a single file, and it's filemaker were talking about!! Just run the DDR on it and that will help. ; )

[add] ops, messed up the quote blocks...

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: David McKee ]

SteveB · October 5, 2001

David:

quote:

Of the many lessons I've learned in listening to the developer community, is that many kinds of developers assume they are the "majority" but this is a vague claim to make. There are MANY groups of developers and I wouldn't making any size-estimations casually

On its face, your statement is clearly correct. However, I would bet that more users would find a better development environment much more compelling than SQL. If you disagree, just go back thru the postings and look at how many complaints there were for re-sizable windows versus how many requested SQL.

quote:

So that invalidates the feature??? The field names are fully spelled out as are the script names. Honestly, it isn't that complex of a solution. It's a single file, and it's filemaker were talking about!! Just run the DDR on it and that will help.

Your original suggestion to me was to modify what FM had done with the Report. Would you like to receive a tool with no documentation? Can you tell me what fields DR1 through DD32 hold? Shouldn't this have been included on the CD? The feature has a lot less validity if it doesn't do the analysis it was designed to do. If it isn't a database analysis tool, then what the hell is it? If it is an analysis tool, one would think it should show 'orphans'. After spending $400, do I then have to invest my time to do what FM neglected to do? Or worse, going out and spending more money on the Waves in Motion product when it comes out.

Finally, I just as vehemently disagree with you that it is a shoddy product with more shortcomings than advantages.

David McKee (Protolight) · October 5, 2001

Steve,

You are certainly are entitled to your opinion, even though I think it is a bit too exaggerated. I understand that you have particular needs.

I guess I can only re-iterate that you should not get frustrated that certain "simple" improvements that you desire have not made it into a particular version.

Please understand that it is not a matter of lack-of-desire or ability to fix XYZ, but that there are a legion of considerations to take into account when deciding upon what to devote resources to when releasing and new version.

If it is worthless to you, I understand, and this is probably what you are saying. I'm just disappointed since I worked on FMD 5.5 and I know how much hardwork and planning went into that product from everyone envolved. I commented because I could not understand why your recommendation was so fatalistic and all-encompassing against the new version, which I think does bring good value to FM Developers.

Taken as a whole, FileMaker is a fantastic product, and hopefully it will continue to serve your needs. Hopefully some later versions will sate your requirements for a good product release.

Moon · October 5, 2001

Fascinating stuff, this. Working stiff developer vs a guy with a lot invested in the new product. It points out to me, at least, that what FileMaker thinks we want and what we really want as developers have diverted.

David, your hard work on FMD 5.5 notwithstanding, you barked up the wrong tree. Or maybe your target is not us, independent developers, but like Live Oak stated, it is the corporate decision makers. Okay. I can accept that, but don't try to tell me that your product is worth the upgrade for those of us who want to develop information systems for the small and medium size groups that constitute a very large group of FileMaker clients. The upgrade cost is outlandish, and the benefits to us are mediocre. What I think Steveinvegas is trying to tell you, and what I wholeheartedly support, is the FileMaker Inc. is abandoning its core if this is the path that the products will continue to take.

FileMaker is ignoring what we want, features we have been asking for FOR YEARS. Features that make a difference to us for whom time is money, and a big chunk of our money at that. I hope FileMaker Inc. is listening to this debate. FM Developer 5.5 is an even bigger disappointment than was FMP 5.5. I hope Steveinvegas' purchase is the last copy FileMaker sells. I for one am disgusted with the products and the ripoff upgrade costs.

Sorry for the rant, but I throw my vote with Steveinvegas. Nothing personal, David. But I feel really let down after singing FileMaker's praises for the last dozen years, and long for the days when an update meant meaninful improvements, not esoteric add ons.

SteveB · October 5, 2001

Right on Moon!!

Moon · October 5, 2001

Well stated, Mr. Dykstra. I guess it is asking too much of any product to be all things to all people. I agree that FileMaker has scattered its efforts too much and the results are more half-assed than many of us would like. Perhaps they should offer a corporate version, a developer version, and a webster version....

Nahhh.

Despite my complaining, I agree that FileMaker is a great product, even if the latest iterations are not worth what FileMaker charges for them. Version 5.0vx of both FMP and FMD are and will continue to be what I will espouse to my clients and fellow developers until more worthwhile updates are offered. For the corporate managers and web developers, if the new products ring your bell, go for it. But for us independent consultants and for the smaller scale users, the latest upgrades are expensive excess.

I only hope the next iteration of changes to FileMaker address the developer experience: interface, improved editing menus, updated graphic tools, windows and layout management, more powerful editing, debugging, analysis, orphin hunting, etc., that have been described in this forum and elsewhere.

And I still maintain that the $30 upgrade window for FMD 5.5 (six weeks!) is ridiculously short, and the full upgrade cost is outrageously high. Stop funding the stockholders on the backs the current users.

SteveB · October 5, 2001

Because I can't drop a good argument, can someone tell me why FM has disabled the clipboard when working with scripts. It seems to me to be a rather easy change that would then allow us to use a programming editor to do global finds and replaces, and then copy the script back to the clipboard and into a script? Think of all the time we could save!!!

I have my own guesses as to why they disabled this function, but I'd like to hear from some of the experts.

BobWeaver · October 5, 2001

quote:

GetField( field )! [dev] New calc function returns the contents of the field specified. {This one rocks, IMHO, you can now dynamically get the contents of a field specified by a text value ("FirstName"), or a field(repetition) that contains the name of the field you want to examine (ie CurrentFieldNameToProcess). Combine with Status(CurrentFieldContents) and your days of extra scripts for different fieldnames is over.}.

Well, this is definitely a great addition, but my days of extra scripts won't be over until there is also a Status(CurrentButtonID) function that tells me which button the user clicked to perform the script.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth. laugh.gif" border="0

[ October 05, 2001: Message edited by: BobWeaver ]

DykstrL · October 6, 2001

Just thought I’d throw my 2 cent’s worth into this fray.

As a FileMaker user/consultant/developer/guru, etc., for ten years, I think I can see the point of view from each user side. I am really a member of each of these groups looking to FileMaker to give me the features and functions that will make my job(s) easier and faster.

The need for SQL/ODBC compatibility is really crucial to the CORPORATE community. Without it, there is no full acceptance from this group – which, I think is also crucial for FileMaker to be accepted as something other than “that MAC toy database application”. If, and when FileMaker ever gets the ability to integrate with “live” SQL data, would be the “killer functionality” to allow FileMaker to be a fast and easy front end to corporate data. This would shorten development time for SQL data user access from months/years with Powerbuilder, Access, C#, and VB to hours/days with FileMaker. They need CORPORATE acceptance to survive. They’re getting close – but not there yet.

The WEB community is constantly looking for new and easier tools to provide data to the world. The addition, and continued improvements of the Web Companion has given FileMaker a niche in the toolbox for web developers. In my opinion, if FileMaker can ever get the instant publishing to REALLY work properly it would propel FileMaker into the forefront for tools for the web development community. They’re getting a little closer, but they’ve still got a ways to go.

I do think it is a tremendous mistake to drop (Claris? FileMaker? Apple?) Home Page. A lot of us were hoping for improved versions to make FileMaker development on the web easier as other GUI web packages are still lacking understanding and expertise of FMP tags.

The CONSULTANT/DEVELOPER community wants some integrated tools in FileMaker that makes workgroup data applications easier to develop and maintain. If some of you remember when the Web Companion was added in version 4, it almost looked like an afterthought to add it into the install. There was very little documentation on how to use it or what it could or couldn’t do. Until there were some third party books written, we were pretty much left on our own to figure out what to do with it and how to do it.

I too, was disappointed in the Database Design Report and documentation. Kinda close, but no cigar – yet. I have wanted this feature for years, but if its not giving me what I need, it is not really much good to me.

FileMaker cannot afford to alienate the developer/consultant community – these people are FileMaker’s unpaid advertising billboards. Losing support from this group would seriously hamper FileMaker’s growth as a mainstream software product.

I guess, what it comes down to is this: FileMaker Inc. is trying to please everyone all at the same time. The problem, as I see it, is FileMaker’s programming efforts are trying to go in too many directions at the same time, and alas, we all get just a little of what we want, but each new version falls short of what each community is waiting for – everyone gets disappointed. Maybe they need to concentrate on one community’s needs at a time, but which one first?

At the same time, I would not want to see FileMaker go ‘willy-nilly’, adding functions an features before they are fully tested and ensure that changes do not put us into DLL hell and GPF’s with the poor Microsoft developers. Regardless of its shortcomings, FileMaker has been a very stable, easy to use product, with relatively few problems.

David McKee (Protolight) · October 9, 2001

quote:

I guess, what it comes down to is this: FileMaker Inc. is trying to please everyone all at the same time. The problem, as I see it, is FileMaker

SteveB · October 9, 2001

David:

You can hardly be considered unbiased at this point in time.

I personally reject the fact that FM listens to its developers...if it did, then FM 5.5 would'nt look like it does now. Show me one other development system where you need to edit a file line by line!.

FM has many strong points, but it also has as many weak points. All we have ever requested was for them to address SOME of these. They haven't

even fixed existing bugs. Gimme a break!!!

SteveB · October 9, 2001

David:

The point I was making is that you have an emotional attachment to this release, and if I were in your place I would too.

I chose FM because I thought it the best product for what I wanted to do...I still think it is. I did not have it jammed in my face by some corporate entity. Nevertheless, you seem unable to admit that it is a less than perfect upgrade. I raised points that you just ignored, like the lack of documentation about the DDR the output of the DDR, the problem with the debugger, the bugs that still exist from the previous version, etc. As for FM listening to developers, based on what they've produced they weren't listening too closely.

I too have better things to do then spending my time writing and trying to get you to see my side. You appear unable or unwilling to admit they screwed up...even a little bit! If Microsoft had done such a poor job, no doubt we would all be yelling about it.

[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Steveinvegas ]

David McKee (Protolight) · October 9, 2001

First, yes, I unapologetically love FileMaker. This is not because of some sort of irrational emotion, this is simply because it is the best desktop/rad database tool there is.

Actually, if you look back, hopefully you can see in my statements that I was not refusing to "admit the product was less than perfect." I'm not sure what gave you such an impression?

My counterpoint was merely that the flaws you listed in no way invalidate the new features, especially to the point where it is just a "bug fix release". My counterpoint was quite the opposite case. (ie not to refuse to admit that the product has value to the developer).

I also did my best to address your points (there are at least three theads I can count). Take a look at the one in the FM Dev forum for some of them.

As for the lack of documentation on the DDR template, my point was that it is indeed "self documenting". It is not a complex template, and my point was if you need to have advanced additions to the DDR Fmp format, then you are advanced enough to know how to implement them in the template.

So, yes, I think I did address all those points if I missed any and you wish to discuss them, please feel free to bring up the issue in the FM Dev forum (or requests) and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you and pass on any feedback!

= )

SteveB · October 10, 2001

You consider DDR1 through DDR36 documentation? C'mon now. Why should I have to modify what those guys have done when in fact virtually ever developer would like to know where the orphans reside?

If I'm so wrong about what the developers on this forum want, why don't you post a questionaire and ask for comments? How many developers do you think will be satisfied with the DDR? or not being able to see the field values in the debugger? You seem to think that we should all be very grateful to FM for the sloppy work at twice the price (only my opinion of course), and I am just as convinced that they should know that I and at least some of the other developers feel ripped off. The upgrade is not useless, but when I look at the tradeoff between new features, old problems that were not addressed, and price, many users will be better off skipping this upgrade. In fact FM seems to consider this a (relatively) minor upgrade...look at the version number for proof!

You are also ignoring my question about why they didn't fix existing bugs. Why didn't they enable the clipboard, which I am willing to bet is political, not technical? If Microsoft pulled this crap, we'd be giving them hell so why shouldn't FM be told that users are unhappy?

LiveOak · October 10, 2001

Of all the issues discussed, my pet gripe is quite general. More and more software packages are being delivered without adequate or any documentation. The rationale made up to justify what is really an exercise in cost cutting, laziness, or a lack of literacy on the part of developers is that the product is SO easy to use that no documentation is needed. This is, of course, TOTAL BS! This is yet another symptom of the egotism and/or lack of understanding of customer's needs suffered by much of the software industry.

While this comment is not directed specifically at FMI, if the shoe fits...

-bd

David McKee (Protolight) · October 10, 2001

Steve, I never claimed to be unbiased, neither have you. Neither of us are, and I doubt there is any FMP user that is unbiased. So I don't think this is the point.

Instead, I would think it not an unreasonable claim to say that I am capable of seeing both sides. I am an FMI employee who knows many FMI employees personally, I am a person who extensively uses FMP, I know many FMP developers on a personal level, and I am also a computer programmer.

What is more, it should be OBVIOUS that I am here because I care about the product and it's developers.

If you choose to deny any evidence or discussion on FMI listening, then in your perspective, FMI _will_ always be ignoring you. In addition, I'd remind you that just because a company doesn't completely satisfy an expectation doesn't mean it is not listening.

I do not expect you to know that FMI has conducted extensive on-site customer visits, nor do I expect you to know that FMI has hosted developer-focus groups around the world. Perhaps you had not participated in them.

However, I would think that I would have been given the benefit of the doubt, spending my free time to reach out and participate on a web-forum. I have a family, including a fantastically cool four year old son. I couldn't possibly spend too much time with him. And yet here I am spending time trying to discuss filemaker with you.

I may be an employee, but this forum is NOT my job, nor I am intimately connected to FMP. I can leave FMI anytime I wanted. The reason I stay is because I think FMP is a fantastic product and it is worth the money.

Having it implied that I am only puppeting things in a biased way because I work at FMI is extremely shallow and unfair.

If I didn't care for the product or it's customers I would just clock-in, do my job, clock-out and take my paycheck, moving on when FMI "goes bankrupt". I'd never bother with developer communication.

If you choose to discount what I am trying to communicate, then that is your choice, but don't be suprised when you feel like you are having a one-sided discussion with FMI.

That is because you are doing so, by your own design.

I'm here because I want to avoid that kind of thing.

For what it is worth.

Charlie · October 11, 2001

All -

I (sort of) started this, so I'll jump back in.

I've been using Filemaker since 1991/2 (can't remember), back when it was flat and simple. Over time, the product, which I still love, has advanced rather nicely. The funny thing is, it's probably not possible for the FM design squad, whoever they may be, to anticipate everything. And if I look back over some of the weird stunts I've pulled with FM, there's probably no way they could have anticipated what the product was capable of.

If you're like me, you've practically tortured the program into doing what you want. With each success, we cry "hooray!, and we explore a little further into what we can make it do. This leads to the inevitable "if only they would just add this one thing so that..." statement in your mind, and if you're like me, you pray the FM squad have the same thoughts.

Nevertheless, there are a lot of aspects of FM that started out sort of crude, which we accepted back then. Nobody really thought of it as a "serious" database program, but we loved that we could use it and make it do things we wanted. It was obviously made FOR the layman, not a database programmer. Why FM hasn't addressed some of these design issues is a mystery to me. I don't think it would be that hard to clean up scripting, allow for saved views of field definitions (grouped to help you keep track of what's going on, etc.), rejigger the relationship dialogue box to allow a more visual representation of the relationships, allow comments to be added to things like field definitions, relationships, and list definitions, etc. These don't add complexity, they add clarity. These are things that all "users" would find helpful.

The IT thing

I think it's a very good thing that FM has gone far in "legitimizing itself" to the Microsoft/ODBC/SQL crowd. (I had a several-year battle with an IT department in the government over FM.) I'm not really qualified to talk about that aspect of the program, but I can easily see its importance. Ditto the web: I've only made one web-based solution, and that was using Tango and FM, not CDML or whatever. Again I'm not very qualified to comment on that.

A little IT story:

I'd written a huge, multi-table solution to handle grants for Americorps, a federal agency.

I was working for peanuts (and here's the rub), I was clearly a layman when it comes to databases. The fact that I (the layman) was able to DO IT in Filemaker is what FM is all about. While I was gone for a few years in Africa, Americorps actually tried to replace what I had done, using Oracle, and they spent millions of dollars (no exaggeration) only to arrive at half a solution. The people who were using the new $2 million software declared it unusable, then coaxed me back and I redesigned the FM system to make it relational. I'd never used a relational database before, but FM made it a fairly easy proposition, at least conceptually. I think Americorps's total investment in the FM solution was something like $150,000 max.

The IT people, who said about 100 times they were going to make us change to Access, despite the Oracle failure, finally gave in. Why? Not because they liked FM per se (they hate Apple in all forms), but because they knew they would have to spend another million or so redesigning what was working in FM so that they could run it in Access or SQL or Oracle or whatever. This is the real point here: a layman using only his wits, really looking at the task at hand, and using FM, was able to create a reasonably robust system (it's still working, they tell me). The IT people knew they couldn't replicate it without spending something like a factor of 10 in another system.

THIS is why Filemaker is important. THIS is what Filemaker needs to keep in mind. It's a database that real people can use. So if it's a stand-alone system, or a web-ready solution, or a front-end to an SQL database, it still needs to be accessible to real people, not people who've gone to Microsoft school or whatever and sit in the IT department instead of with the people doing the work out there.

I think (don't jump all over me) that a lot of us started out by trying to do some simple or not-so-simple tasks for small or medium-sized groups/companies. Most of us, I believe, were like me: reasonably intelligent laypeople who weren't database programmers; we were people trying to accomplish specific tasks to help people get work done. Filemaker was just this little program that we opened up and said, "hmm, maybe this will work." And then we discovered that it wasn't so hard to get it to do what we wanted. It was very Apple Computer, if you want to put it in those terms. Fairly intuitive, pleasant, friendly.

Now, how does FM move forward? First, although the complexity of what's available has gotten rather amazing, the first thing is to make sure that somebody sitting down with FM for the first time can still do what we were doing back then. I think this is still true. Most of the more complicated things we (the "developers") want are things that you wouldn't want to do as a newbie. The wonderful thing is that these more complicated things can be there IF you want to use them. They aren't required; they're available, but they're not in the way.

David, you're right to defend the project you were involved in. I have no doubt there are some great changes (the new status fields and getfield calc can certainly help cut down on those multiple scripts to do the same thing), but Steve is also right. There are just some really basic things that both "developers" and newbies would find extremely helpful, many of which I believe would not be difficult to implement. There are also some more complicated things that newbies couldn't care less about but which would add serious value to the package for those trying to do more complex tasks.

I have a fairly long list of wants, some of which have been addressed in the new release, from what I can tell. (Yes, they are "my" wants.) I would love to share them with others, and have people tell me where I'm full of crap and where I'm spot-on. I'd love to have a sit-down with the FM squad (a lot of us would, probably) to explain why these would be good things, at least to me. If anybody wants to take a look at my list, just let me know and I'll email it to you.

This has been a long. rather unstructured message, but I hope it makes some sense. I still swear by Filemaker, but I'm not really keen to spend a bunch of money on an upgrade that hasn't addressed some of the "real people" issues that have been lingering for years. I probably will upgrade, just because somebody else will pay for it. It would be lovely if the FM Squad would fix/improve some of the glaring design drawbacks and give those improvements away as 5.6.

Charlie

DykstrL · October 11, 2001

"although the complexity of what's available has gotten rather amazing, the first thing is to make sure that somebody sitting down with FM for the first time can still do what we were doing back then. I think this is still true. Most of the more complicated things we (the "developers") want are things that you wouldn't want to do as a newbie. The wonderful thing is that these more complicated things can be there IF you want to use them. They aren't required; they're available, but they're not in the way.

"

Boy! I wish I'd said that. You are right on, Charlie!

My experience with FM is very similar to Charlie's. I did have some database (dBase) experience, but knew nothing about FileMaker and within a couple of weeks of using FM, I was developing cross-platform database applications and electronic forms. I was amazed how easy and fast it was. The depth of possibilities in how to solve issues still amazes me today - I am constantly learning something new about FileMaker nearly every day.

No matter how much I/we want new and greater features built into FileMaker, I DO sincerely hope that the FMI programmers like David never lose sight of the fact that FileMaker should always be easy to use for the novices and robust enough for the advanced developers.

That said, I also hope that FMI has not fallen prey to the Microsoft idiom of adding more and more new features just to sell a version (revenue) release and not going back and fixing/improving/debugging the features that are already there.

'nuff said...

Moon · October 12, 2001

Charlie, you have said it best, at least from my point of view. And Dykstrl, your concern that FM follows the Microsoft Macrobloat model is spot on. Please, filemaker, go back to making FileMaker more elegantant and cool. Charlie, I would love to see your want list. And to engage in the discussion of what would be good and bad.

What a great thread. This topic has really touched a nerve.

Charlie · October 12, 2001

Moon -

My list is, ironically enough, in Excel. I will email it to you directly. If it looks like something that can be posted directly to this or another thread, you are probably more competent at doing than I.

Here's to a fruitful discussion.

Charlie

Moon · October 12, 2001

Charlie, judging by your post, I don't think anyone is more competent than you at kicking this off. And rereading my own, I think I am probably the least.

Charlie · October 13, 2001

All -

I've sent a list of possible topics for discussion to Steve and to Moon. Is this the appropriate forum for discussing specifics, or should these things be picked up under the Feature Requests, etc. forum?

Also, my list is pretty unpleasant to look at when I paste it into the window here. Are there any better ways of posting such a list?

At any rate, here's a list to get the discussions going. I believe that some of these things have been addressed in 5.5, but I don't know the specifics.

How we do this is definitely open to debate.

Charlie

(Crikey, I just saw this in Preview, and it's pretty ugly. Try not to hate me.)

Sign In

Basic changes to FM in 5.5?

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Similar Content

Important Information