Question

I’ve been interested in 4D SAS‘ database product for a long time, though have barely touched it in eons.

In considering what tools to use for application development, especially one that will require a database component, what should be looked for when considering open-source tools like MySQL and PostgreSQL vs proprietary solutions like 4D or Pervasive SQL?

What good (and bad!) experiences has the SO community had with various DB tools like 4D, Pervasive, FilemakerPro, etc?

Any bad experiences?

Answer 1

4D is a MacOS/Windows only cross-platform, proprietary database system with both stand-alone and Client-Server varieties. You would do well to compare it to Alphafive.com software which is Windows only. I’ve worked with it for 17 years and it has served me and my department very well. Off the top of my head …

Pros:

1. Interface & code are closely tied to the data engine which makes development of rich, cross-platform user interfaces very fast and easy.
2. Proprietary relational data engine runs natively on both platforms, along with native client interfaces (but requires licenses for multi-users). Auto-relations are helpful (but sometimes get in the way).
3. Can access external systems via SOAP and ODBC and SQL drivers (limited).
4. Can access 4D from external systems via SOAP or http requests & web pages.
5. Native procedural programming language based on Pascal and is EASY to learn.
6. Excellent tool for small to mid-sized departments.
7. Latest version accepts subset of SQL commands AND original data access, so it’s backward compatibility record has been very good.
8. Security is EASY in 4D.
9. You can build solutions to deploy through a variety of means, and are not limited by whether or not MS Access is installed.

Cons:

1. Interface & code are closely tied to the data engine which can lead to limited use of abstraction and “black-box” coding unless you make it a goal of your development.
2. Compiles to one monolithic structure file forcing restart for single fixes.
3. Language is still only procedural–making it harder for object-oriented programmers to accept. Every method requires separate “file” in 4D so you can’t include more then one function or procedure in a single routine — it will take some getting used to it.
4. While company appears to be in good shape, growing and developing, you simply never know as they keep their condition to themselves.
5. Company has never really marketed itself–trusting in its developer base to spread the word and grow the product through site deployments and product upgrades. Web site is clearly useful only to developers who already use the product — it simply fails to attract new users.
6. Product upgrades have always seemed to focus on how the tool is better for the DEVELOPERS rather than for the CUSTOMERS of those developers.
7. SQL lacks views, compound indexes, and other common SQL features.
8. When a user requests a report of specific columns of data, I often have to write yet another program just to provide that specific data — I can’t always just query the data and generate a text file.
9. Does not handle new OS versions with nearly the ease of web browser based applications. Older version is broken on Mac OS 10.6, and newest version requires the latest Mac OS 10.6. No version is certified yet on Windows 7.

I’ve been nearly a year at learning ASP.NET and a few weeks at Ruby on Rails. While SQL data stores are EASY, user interface is HARD — but worth it when your application still functions through OS upgrades. You can always use an older browser if the latest version breaks something.

I’d recommend you consider either of those, depending on how much funds you have available to implement the project–Rails being the cheaper of the two. Then, ANY system with a web browser can access the data, and you can fix interface pages on the fly as needed rather than taking the whole system down a few minutes for a single, simple update. Those skills might be more marketable in the future.