Filemaker Pro Advanced 14 0 Download Free - herecfil. herecfil. Filemaker Pro 11 Download. Filemaker Pro Download. FileMaker Pro is a low code tool with pro code power. So, while you don’t have to be a developer to make an app, if you are one, we’ve got you covered. Using FileMaker Pro, any problem solver can: Drag and drop to create layouts. FileMaker Pro 14 supports Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) addresses, as well as IPv4 addresses. Any computer accessing FileMaker Pro files over a network will need to have a licensed installation of FileMaker Pro 14 or FileMaker Pro 14 Advanced. replace.me Filemaker Pro 14 free download - Sound Forge Pro 14, Corel PaintShop Pro, FileMaker Pro (International version), and many more programs.
DEFAULT
DEFAULT
DEFAULT
DEFAULT
Filemaker pro 14 .net framework free -
About creating runtime solutions (FileMaker Pro Advanced). Yes, FMPA14 FMPA 15 requires replace.me framework Download Microsoft. 1. Ability to see options chosen from scripts right in the script editor window. Example: Script step, Sort Records [Restore No Dialog] has a sort behind it. It.
DEFAULT
DEFAULT
Filemaker pro 14 .net framework free
Don't some hospitals still use Windows XP?? They key here would be to see what they are willing to pay as wimdecorte suggested. I would also convert all to SaaS. If you do that you will find that the costs for the end users is much better and everyone gets the benefit of FMS. Sorry if I'm barking up the wrong business model but that's 2 McDonalds meals, or one meal for a couple. How many movies from iTunes is that? Let's say it takes 1 day to make the app, one day to build a website and do marketing, one day to package your runtimes for OSX and Windows and test deployment, that's over sales to recoup development costs.
Once again apologies if I'm far off target and please don't be offended, I just think that if what you are selling is helpful people will gladly pay more. Perfectly reasonable point. Actually it's taken 5y on top of a predecessor non-FM project of 7y.
So I'd like to cover costs, there's minimal chance of profit. The healthcare niche the solution is aimed at pays nothing for current 'solutions'. Those solutions do the basics, v. However, the only 'drive' to improve would if a strategic decision were taken centrally unlikely or a commercial nutrition company thought it would improve sales.
There's little innovation because it would involve risk. I'm agreeing with you guys, RunTime should be available for developers. Not only it's benefits us, the developers, but also the clients. Some clients are individual like self-employed who don't want to spend that much money on a license. I hope FMI keep runtime available in the future version. Reading this, my reaction is: That is fine, then FileMaker may not be the right tool for thier project.
Of course if this is an act of philanthropy, and you do not expect to earn a profit, perhaps you should contant FMI sales to see if your clients are eligible for a discount. They have an interest in their humanitarian effort. Pro-bono work is admirable, just keep in mind there are costs involved. Not the least of which is development time, which is usually the lions share of the overall cost. Not all clients can afford to buy FileMaker. If I tell the clients to use a different project that mean, developer like have to learn new programs.
If you invest time and energy in the project, you at least expect to receive minimal profit. The price is depend on the type of project, and time. SaaS is Software as a Service Subscription model. Many people already do this with Runtimes using some sort of registration key. This is a better revenue model in most cases. There are exceptions. Solution support is usually offered to current subscribers to add value to the subscription.
This allows you to interact with every customer on some level at least annually and that is very valuable in itself. The question was directed at tays01s, who is asking about a specific Runtime that likely has a specific cost.
Your current users would not benefit from FMS security, backups and networked multiple users? That is a huge value right there.
Runtime was the core selling proposition which let' me choose FM over other Developer Platforms. Back then, the Runtime seemed to fit to FMI's business plan. You are entitled to create them in the current version. FMI never promised to keep that feature in all future versions. But you can use them as long as they are there. Big Tom: SaaS, thanks, that's actually my model, I'm simply not seen the acronym. And yes, the users would benefit from all the mentioned functionality, but the solution is barely launched, so I don't have the traction to get users to follow or persaude IT departments.
It seems that more applications are turning to Web, or iOS and Android and FileMaker deprecated runtime when it released webdirect. The next step in price above that is SBA which I believe is a very steep discount.
As for Runtimes you should be able to get another good 5 years out of Runtime after it is deprecated using the last version to support it as it usually takes a while before new OS's break runtime functionality. In that time I'm assuming that Virtual Server prices are going to continue to drop greatly in price, or some other model or technology will come forward. Perhaps FMI might rethink its decision.
They already have kept the runtime for longer that they might have wanted. Are you working for free for them, giving your hours to support the hospitals? I understand that some companies distrubute 'sinds of runtimes from one FileMaker Advanced. We paid for FM Advanced and just used it as it was offered.
And FMI decided about the price tag on their own. There is nothing to cry about on their side. Yes, but they warned you years ago that this model is going away Personally; I wouldn't go with such a small ecosphere when making a jump into other tools. I would go with something that works on a much wider scale with much more support. In recent years Microsoft's. Or something like Java. Going to XOJO - to me - would feel like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.
Can you define "small ecosphere"? The only advantage I can think of to moving to something like XOJO or LiveCode is the appeal of being able to write once and deploy on multiple platforms. Like FileMaker, you will be limited to whatever the product provides or limits you to and subject to whatever bugs are present. Learning to code and writing platform-agnostic plus platform-specific code is more work and more responsibility but gives you more control.
It is very hard to find a tool that is a good replacement for the set of ready-to-use and easy development tools provided by FileMaker. They report over users, so it's not too small. And forum members. FileMaker makes a lot of things very easy to develop! Not so much the of platforms but the size of its community and tools. The learning curve to get into proper OO programming is not insignificant and I would not want to limit myself by going with a relatively obscure tool like XOJO if you can go through the same learning curve with much 'broader' tools like C , VB.
The write-once-deploy-many-times promise is a bit of a fallacy. But still: more choices is better, more supported platforms is better. You would code once and execute on any platform. At the time WordPerfect started to rewrite it's successful word processor in Java I tried it, that was so slooooooooooooooooooooow.
The project was killed. I guess XOJO needs a run-time an engine specific for every platform. That means the code would not be compiled. FMP itself is compiled, but not the scripts. Note though that bits is deprecated, meaning that on Windows, bit versions will not be supported in some time. If I am right, that's already the case for Mac OS.
Regarding alternatives to FileMaker, there still is Access. But nowhere near! Access was interesting, but it is treated in a very step motherly way at Microsoft. And it is very handicapped. One problem is a max db size of 2G and Microsoft is suggesting replacing moribund functionality with Excel:.
Access is not the way to go. Who votes to return to everything in Excel? One tiny thing is better in Excel than in FileMaker: The graphing tools. Buuuuut the I would rather have FileMakers cumbersome graph tools with correct data than Excel messing up data. Oh by the way: One other area where distributed Excel sheet really shine compared with a FileMaker server: Each user can get his version of data Mostly I was joking.
What you say is true, of course! Right in the kisser. But you would be surprised at how much small business still use Excel to create Invoices for example. Both Beverly and I was joking. Databases are probably among the most serious topics, seldom giving room for the smile.
So when the opportunity is there You are right, and thereby they are also saving precious resources Oh yes, I have seen that. It doesn't mean they will suddenly stop working but with every new FM version they will be less and less relevant. If none of those options work for you I believe the best course of action is to use another developing tool.
There will be 5 dedicated sessions about XOJO, 4th. Dimension, Servoy, Open-Source and more. You write that alternatives to FileMaker is the main topic at the FileMaker conference this year.
Some of the other sessions are covering integration with other solutions ad a few are about alternatives Has my German really deteriorated to a level where I can not read the agenda? Read the description under the sessions, it is some very well thought out agendas comparing platforms. It is not presented as an exit from FileMaker but to broaden the view. As one of the arrangers of the first non American FileMaker Devcon, the FileMaker Devcon Scandinavia, and responsible for the conference when it is in Denmark I would probably not have done it exactly like they do it in Salzburg.
But I can not see that they are doing anything wrong and I do definitely not see that the they are dedicating the conference to alternatives as the main topic. But that's a long time ago. They are all very relevant for our FileMaker solutions and we integrate with them wherever we meet them. We do not see those systems as alternatives to FileMaker but as important players to integrate with. And I a wondering a little bit about parts of this discussion coming up every time when we talk about the ned to pay for FileMaker products.
Field-based script triggers definitions, not layout-based and without the need for a plug-in. Besides Sort[] and Perform Script[] what other script steps do you use that that can't be done dynamically? You can't dynamically construct a field name for use in the "Copy" command, and there are several others that only allow you to pick the field from the field list and doesn't provide any "Specify" to calculate field value.
I ran into that problem just yesterday. I see no logical reason for such a functional restriction. These script steps all have options that can not be calculated I'll be honest, I'm a bit of an optimist :. I like the options There are so many things I could reduce to a single script step instead of a convoluted nest of If Else if Not that one Either There is something to be said for readability. We have a guy on site who is famous infamous? Very compact, very fast, and very incomprehensible.
Holy Cow, Joshua, nice list! And I totally agree, and embrace the horror just as passionately! I am all about readability. And at the same time, somethings can still be highly readable, and still hold some 'smart code' that makes a decision at run time.
There is just some inconsistency right now. Example: Perform Find [Restore]. No need to install Java when installing FileMaker Pro. I do not know but somehow it always needs Java to install FMPro. Sometimes switching between layouts is not fast over WAN. I would like to see a progress bar like any browser so the user does not assume the application hanged. FM Pro 12 is still a 32 bit process.
Only FM Server is 64 bits. It seems shadows are only available via Themes which are not customizable enough. Disable button. Conditional Formatting is not enough since the little hand is there. Keynote effects. Great suggestions, all. Now do something about it. I think this is more a marketing issue than a technical issue, of course. Being able to replace the 'Preferences FM Inc.
April is just not foolish any more! For google maps to behave properly on windows inside a web viewer. I'd love for exports to allow us to create our own headers, like the. It would be the dream product.
Thought of another one. The ability to drag and drop databases between folders in the FMS management console. Right now you have to completely remove and then re-host a file. Being able to close it and move it would save time and drive developers to organize their server file structure. But it essentially works the same on both OS's. But I have been putting in feature requests for this one for a long time.
But you can start typing the name of the TO and it will jump to names that match. Some enhancements and full search functionality would be very useful.
You know for those times that you can't remember the actual word that the script step started with. For me another good one - a more functional implementation of the function list. Filtering, auto-complete.
I should NEVER need to take my hands off the keyboard to go find a function that I can't remember off the top of my head. If the next release only dealt with this issue and provided winow consistancy on both platform, I would be very very happy.
Layers would make designing so much easier. I wonder if you can maintain the MDI, so you don't have to change the whole architecture of the code, and still drop the Application Window. I did discuss the issue with one of the engineers at devcon a few years ago and got the impression that this was non trivial to fix. However, other windows apps seem to have dealt with the problem so I don't see why FM cannot.
It is a major difference between platforms that results in significant compromise when developing for a mixed environment. I will keep on hoping and requesting this change; maybe one day What are some samples of apps that interact between windows, but don't have an Application Window surrounding them? I've been trying to find some recent examples, but it's hard to test without paying for the program.
The same goes with security and privileges - you can't even type to go to the field you want there and the sort order seems to be locked as well. I would also like to be able to sort a portal and print only a portal without having to create a separate layout. In fact, you only have to buy 10 licences. We do that all the time and have been with SBA for four years. If you're already SBA approved I'm sure you can buy different quantities, but the minimum is still the same. Unfortunately SBA is not a free or low cost program to get in for smaller development firms and consultants.
I've really enjoyed looking at all of the wishlist suggestions. Keep 'em coming! Abiltiy to disable a form control a la Access or VB. I know there are some very clever workarounds to make this happen, but they seem to be really convoluted. Ability to have "real" boolean checkboxes; i.. I would still like to see more control of the new window command.
New Window with existing recent new window controls name, size, position plus layout; found set; view state. I've been using Xcode a lot lately and as an IDE it's absolutely amazing. When coming back to FileMaker everything seems really primitive to me. Here's what I would love to see:.
That would be a huge, gigantic win. The way it is now is a low barrier to entry, but a management nightmare if you want to refactor a big change throughout the whole solution.
The polish and helpfulness of Xcode has me spoiled and frustrated when I come back to FileMaker. I know none of these are likely, but I'm hoping they will make it a more friendly place for developers. When a script contains a "Perform Script [ ]" step, display the referenced script from within the calling script instead of always requiring us to go through the Scriptmaker tree over each of the referenced files where each called script resides.
Again, allowing for nested script referencing to display as a single script stream. I predict instant web publishing will be overhauled for the next major release, and that will be the long awaited thin client.
Primarily a multiple columns primary key like for the intersection tables that consist two foreign keys and ID column, unique and not null. And second, a true project management for separate data and interface. Here are a few things that I feel would make FileMaker a better product, In the order of importance So we could send a text string as a return delimited list in a variable defining the sort order and the direction But don't use brackets as delimiters, So we can spec repeating field repetitions if needed This would in many cases save developers from having to create calc keys to establish joins.
This would be very helpful in long scripts with multiple "If" indents. I think many other developers have asked for this as well. I find the way the inspectors have been implemented to be more of a detriment than an asset. Even with multiple Inspector windows open which is a waste of real estate I still have to constantly re-select tabs, as they seem to change "constantly" on there own in an undesirable way depending on what object you select.
Some good ideas. However, I dis-agree with the "no need for a client application". The majority of FileMaker users are personal or small business environments. Many are not using Server, because they only have a single user. They build what they need to help them run their business.
What you are referencing, is an enterprise level application. While FileMaker can do an enterprise application if built right, that is not the main focus of the product. Though I do strongly agree that some changes are necessary overall. A cheap or free thin client All things that could help the product. Not to mention bug fixes, and performance enhancements. I really want FileMaker to move away from their proprietary and rather isolated approach to database developement.
While the developement process itself is mostly fine, the output should be HTML and the hosting platform should be the web. Introducing CSS was a first and rather small step , these days the whole layout engine should be pure HTML - I can't tell you how often I miss certain UI controls that require annoying FileMaker hacks, but are pretty standard in frameworks like Bootstrap.
Of course FileMaker Inc. Maybe a license model based on the number simultaneous connections would make sense, but I see no need for a client application since the content should be served as HTML through a browser.
Any solution the end user touches should either be served via web browser or as a webapp wrapped in an app bundle see wunderlist or rdio , this would enable app store distribution, however I have no idea how FileMaker can keep selling licenses that way.
The developer, of course, should still need a FileMaker development environment, similar to the current FM Advanced we already have. I know all of this sounds rather abstract and those are indeed just loose ideas, but in general I'd like to see FileMaker build on its strengths like ease of use, visual development and fast results while introducing new features that moves FM closer to frameworks like Rails and Django.
FileMaker should become a visual development environment for webapps, that can hide the complexity and provide common UI controls again: see Bootstrap or Zurb Foundation for beginners but enables experts to dig deep into the underlying Code.
I want FM to cascade key field value updates across the database relationships. Maybe you're right, it's just that these days I rarely see the point of an application not being network enabled and ready for a multi-user environment.
Certainly there are some situations where it's not needed, but I would have thought that these cases are exceptions. Then again what I meant was positioning FM Server as a different product than it is today. I was thinking of FMS as the base-product, with a flexible license model based on the number of users you need to serve - that way it could be affordable for small businesses, while still being able to adjust to enterprise settings. It's the product every company that uses FileMaker should consider first.
Today though it's kind of an addon, not necessary in many cases. Even we have FM Pro acting as server with some in-house solutions. FileMaker Pro should be replaced by the free or cheap thin client you mentioned though - again, I prefer a web browser. Advanced should become the development environment that enables you to design, plan and develope your solutions and finally push them to your server or create an app bundle that doesn't need an FM license - again, no idea how this would work for FileMaker as a company interested in profits.
This developer edition of FileMaker could be expensive though. Maybe, I have a wrong impression, but usually it's one or two in-house guys that develope the solution while users never touch layout mode. I think it's fair that this tool would come with a heavy price tag. Of course here's also room for all to usual FileMaker improvements we would like to see and know from other IDEs.
I see your point though - it's fair to see FileMaker as a user-centric tool, but I don't like that idea. We don't need a slightly better Excel and users rarely make good developers. Rather I'd want FM to become a serious tool, a hybrid between easily approachable, visual development and sophisticated, powerful, community-driven web frameworks. If that was the only thing FMP did to improve it's operation, I would be more than satisfied and would upgrade with every new version they cared to sell to me.
But right now it's hard to feel that compelled to fund FMI's operation when we have to wait a year or more for the luminary developers to finally give the thing their imprimatur for others to go ahead and use that version.
FileMaker Pro should be replaced by the free or cheap thin client. I have long felt that "adding" a low cost client version not free , that "does not" include layout, script or schema editing, but "does" have all the other user features ie I think this would make it easier for developers to expand the overall FileMaker user base and eventually provide an additional revenue stream to FileMaker as well.
I do feel it is still very important to "continue" the Current FileMaker Pro with the current development tool set. When it comes to transitioning to a browser only interface, I would have to disagree.
The last thing I want is to have is another 3rd party element forced into the process. Because "Browsers" are produced by a handful different companies, in addition there are many different versions in use, all with their own bugs, vulnerabilities, limitations, quirks and plugin variations.
The potential for instabilities expand beyond imagination. If I had a dime for every time I ran into web site elements that worked well with one browser but not in another, I could have retired 10 years ago. In addition as more of a boxed product developer myself, I want nothing to do with "supporting" FMS either.
There are other database development companies that have taken this approach, Servoy comes to mind, I remember looking at Servoy many years ago as an alternative to FileMaker, one of the things that made me "opt-out" was the complicated Server Style licensing also the user interface looked like an 8 year old put it together.
More importantly, I strongly feel the financial implications of losing client and user sales would be disastrous to FileMaker. Good point - maybe there should be some kind of introduction offer to FM development. Or limited editing features in the client, but then again, as I said, I'd like to get rid of the client.
Compatibility shouldn't be an issue - what I had in mind for the layout engine is standard, compliant HTML. At best it wouldn't even matter if you edit your layouts in FileMaker or an editor of your choice. Just dreaming here. Of course this requires strict de-coupling of data, behaviour and frontend - sort of like the MVC approach model, view, controller. IWP isn't an option at all in my opinion - does anyone really use that?
It looks horrible. CWP feels like the worst of both worlds to me - FileMaker isn't exactly known as a great performer, especially with their record centric approach to database design. Meanwhile you also miss out on its rapid design and layout tools. It feels like a huge compromise to me.
I have now all the small business organizations who contact me, asking me for web applications on a PC. They don't want clients anymore. There's no way, no arguments I can use that convince them. I have demoed so many times the filemaker technology. They love it On iphone or Ipad. They want web applications running on a browser when working on PC, at least in my area.
I argued so many times about, virus risks, delay, and so on So at the present time, I win with 2 mixed technologies : Filemaker on Iphone, Ipad and Apex Oracle database cloud. This techno is expensive a lot.
And it's Oracle. With the good and the Bad. But it works in a web browser. Works great. As I said several times before, I saw many softwares databases, edi beeing sold, disapeared, fading away : dbase, paradox, foxpro, powerbuilder, Dinausors that would nver want to face reality : what is the market, who are the high dollar buyers, whar are they asking, begging for? I don't have the absolute, perfect answer.
But I know what I have to do, now to keep on a making a living with IT : filemaker on Iphone or Ipad probably for 1 or 2 years. And the market tells me that more and more androids smartphones and tablets are beeing sold everyday.
Luckly at the present time, corporations don't seem to want to hear about them for security reasons. Until when? I was worried a lot a few months ago about Filemaker's strategy.
I'm not anymore. That means : keep their server thechnology BUT replace or ADD a new web browser client with html capabilities and xls and pdf functions. If they do that I'll be glad because I know they will a have brought new fundations to keep on succeeding for many years again.
I'll be so glad for them and for my business. I'l be glad to see them sinking with sales loss well done! And they can never say they didn't know.
That nobody told them. They can only argue that unfortunately they now have realized that they were like Dinausors who, were to disappear for inability to changes. But me, at the present time, I can work without worrying of the present and the future. But unfortunately, they don't have the technology : web browser capabilities with planners, charts, pdf, excel export, So I have me watching on big virtual high screen some Filemakers's deciders bablebabling, dancing, playing violin on that master boat stopped in the middle of the ocean Now what are they going to do?
Not understanding what you mean? That is FileMaker's words, not mine. Thanks for your message Lee. I absolutely understand and agree with your point of view. I couldn't wait any longer so I'm there for some web app things. I want to believe that FMP is listening to us. Even though Fmp12 was like : "desktop and mobile!.
Web apps? What for? What is it? Considering some many people '' orgs are now asking for Saas and that Microsoft Dynamics, SAP B1, Salesforce and so on are after the small oranizations market with their Saas solutions. Even Microsoft now offers mini word and excel apps in the cloud Saas for free outlook. No to talk about google docs and so on Lee, did you hear of Apex 5.
You have almost a true GUI dev env. If only FMP could watch, test and realize I really hope they will. The sooner the better before it's too late. Having just updated to FMPA IE what the heck is in the Hopefully they can incorporate their core business philosophy with some of the things you are looking for, but keep the simple, user-centric nature of FM.
I think Go is the beginning of that. Mini versions of word, excel and things like Google Docs are not the best comparison. They are so limited and in my opinion, limited as business tools. They hinder business more then they help it. FM12 already is shifting there. Many HTML controls can be used even today. Web Applications are useful, howerver they have many issues.
Some of them:. Almost all the work is done on the server in a full web applications, while client does almost nothing. FileMaker uses a lot of the power in the client machine, so this creates kind of a distributed processing system. It makes the system faster and less network dependable.
This is good for small business as it is today. Counterexample XenApp and FM Counterexample FM11 vs FM Some users prefer to see only the options they want and a browser may show many things not important to the FileMaker Solution. The main counterexample is how iOS Apps have become prefered by users. Remeber at the beginning the only way to make Apps for an iPhone was using the web, soon it was more than evident that users want native applications with syncrhonization capabilities not webapps.
Same here. Some of my clients hated solutions like Shrepoint Web based and love FileMaker client-server approach. It gives them a sense of stability and it seems more especific for their needs. It would make FM a completely different product. FM is not a visual development for WebApps. Many concepts are needed to be an efficient WebApp designer these days. The product would have to be much more complex that in is today.
Especially in mainteinance. And for many application, a web browser is not an option. Some medical applications, government applications, do not allow something to be run in the browser because of security concerns with browsers. Without trying to sway opinion one way or the other regarding how fast HTML does or does not render, I'd like to mention that I think that the second counter example listed above, i.
To my eyes, a comparison of the rendering speed of FM11 vs FM12 is a comparison of a conglomerate of a lot of considerations, not limited to, but including:.
In other words, there is a lot going on in terms of the changes between v11 and v12 -- To assert that all of the differences that we've seen in performance are due to one single technology HTML which happens to be the close cousin of the technology CSS which is now utilized for the storage of layout information seems like a jump to a conclusion.
Mind you, I am not arguing the point as to what is slower or faster for rendering elements -- I am, rather, suggesting that a better counter example is in order to support such a point.
A related question which I find rather fascinating is this:. Do we actually know what technology is being used to render elements in FileMaker 12 clients?
We do know that CSS is used to store the element information - that much is clear. Does anyone have any info on this which they are at liberty to share? I think you are right about the counter example. Of course things should not have to be taken lightly. I would like to point out something.
HTML is a very human readable way of describing content. Most of those technologies send source code over the network and is the browser that renders the content. Any browser can be asked to show the source code.
This is necessary because the Web is open. However, sending and receiving source code is slower than sending and receiving binary code size is bigger. Source code has to be interpreted by the client. Parsed and estructured. If FM decides to use a common browser lots of problems may arise. I believe we all know FM12 is implementing this approach. The new themes are proof of that.
I believe a better example could have been Facebook and the Facebook iOS app. Early versions of Facebook on iOS relied on the web exclusively slower. Then, they created a small app which ecapsultated a web app slow. It was faster but not good enough for most people. Then a native app which uses web technologies fast. They took this route in order to provide faster and more reliable performance.
I think FM12 is on the right path. I would love to see a FM Advanced that really puts the Advanced on the name. They could add at least a Theme Composer, better debugger, performance instruments, etc. I don't know, year after year I've been reading these posts about what we'd like to see in the next version of FileMaker. Though there are very good suggestions, most of people seem not to understand — in my humble opinion — what FileMaker is.
FileMaker IS a tool for non programmers : regular people, doctors, lawyers, housewives, etc. With time, FileMaker has evolved to include more and more options and now is a powerful tool, poweful enough to create real business and enterprise solutions, however, we can't forget what FileMaker is.
FMI people seem to be very clear about what FileMaker is though sometimes I disaggree and they act in consecuence. Please forgive me if I hurt some feelings but it seems to me that most people do not understand what FileMaker is.
I suppose that depends on how you define "developer tool". Granted, it doesn't provide for the use of libraries, subroutines, stack manipulations, OS calls, etc. Respectfully, your comment eerily reminds me of the '70s when IBM was calling an Apple computer a toy and not a "real" computer.
I challenge anyone to identify any population of "regular people" housewives?! You're certainly not hurting my feelings, but I think you're being unfairly myopic in your definition. I sure hope that comment doesn't hurt your feelings. I'm talking about how I think FileMaker was conceptually conceived, not about what can we do with it.
And yes, I've seen housewives making a database for cooking recipes. I didn't mean to imply housewives don't use FMP. I was referring to the use of the more advanced features. FMP allows users to develop solutions at vastly different levels of sophistication and complexity depending on their own technical aptitude as a developer. You may be right that FMP was not originally conceived to be a developer tool.
In fact before version 3 it was wasn't really miuch more than a spreadsheet app. But that was 15 years ago in Today, I'm quite sure a healthy double digit percent of FMP customers will never set up a single relationship between tables, but I'm also qutie sure that others use FMP to drive the entire software operation including the books for multimillion dollar corporations like mine.
And the fact that FMP provides such a broad spectrum of development opportunities should not disqualify it as a reasonably versatile developer tool. I think you don't give due credit to either the aptitudes of "regular people" or to FileMaker's product design. It doesn't take anything approaching a computer science degree to be a great programmer in any language, but FileMaker has an especially easy on-ramp. FileMaker is still a useful tool without loop structures, conditionals, recursion, variables, set theory, etc.
Further, each concept necessary for automated use of the software can be understood first in terms of the manual interface. As more experienced developers, many of us are familiar with sophisticated techniques; but these techniques are not necessary for all useful applications. Anyone who could pass high school algebra can handle all the computer science necessary to understand the workings of the best FileMaker solutions in circulation.
I don't think Ibrahim is being myopic at all; this is a huge part of what makes FileMaker the great tool that it is. Even if FileMaker is not targeted at professional developers, that isn't necessarily a bad thing for developers.
Good education tools make good development tools. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I'm one of those "regular people". I don't have a degree in computer science, however, I know very well my line of business and — as you say — with only high school algebra I could solve the math side of my solution. Of course, being a developer is a lot more than knowing math. What I see is a "developer only" vision in all those feature requests.
I truly believe that if we are going to talk about a product we also need to see the business side of it. Last time I heard it was from "regular people", not professional programmers like us. Certainly I could operate my microwave oven using FileMaker, assuming it has a USB port , but it doesn't mean FileMaker was originally intended to do it. I agree with Micinfo that this should not be a limitation to create great and powerful solutions and I also believe that FileMaker is a tool worth to make a living like I do.
The way script master works in FileMaker is fine. What many people do. That is not possible if we type by hand all the commands. While I'm generally in agreement that the "I want what they have over there" school of thought is a bit misplaced, there is one area that causes me no small headaches: Version control. I don't know of a good way to fix it, because I really don't think changing FM into an IDE-type environment is beneficial for the product.
However, the lack of a good methodology for controlling releases is a significant hindrance to its acceptance by IT manager types. Jbante: Extremely well put.
Thank you for these insights, that was exactly what I was trying to say. For applications it's suited to a limitation shared by other tools , FileMaker is the fastest way to get it done by a large margin. Is that power not satisfactory?
When I hear developers complain that FileMaker lacks this or that feature of an IDE or database engine, I don't hear car drivers complaining that they have a Model T while other drivers have Priuses.
I hear developers complaining about having a helicopter because it doesn't look like a Lambourghini. Maybe FileMaker will throw developers a bone periodically with something like ExecuteSQL, which is like saying, "Fine, here's a 'steering wheel' attached to one of the control columns that you can use instead of the foot pedals.
It's fine to ask for new features, but asking for car features in a helicopter will usually lead to disappointment. In one particular genre of feature request, professionals complaining that FileMaker should have the functionality of some add-on utility built-in misunderstand the nature of IDEs and of professionals.
Professionals will always build and use external tools to make their workflows better; that is the nature of professionals, not a shortcoming of FileMaker. IDEs are an external tool, too. We could at least be asking for features from the more cohesive and well thought-out languages out there like Lisp or Go.
Who's for adopting the actor model in FileMaker? In Jira I create a project for the current version and start collecting bugs and new features. When we release the new version we create a new project in Jira and start over again. It's not perfect but it helps a lot to know what was fixed or added and where. Using jbante example of cars and helicopters: the vast majority of FileMaker users are helicoper pilots , to whom FileMaker makes perfect sense the way it is. It's us, car drivers, who need to see things the way they are, not the way we want them to be.
Those feature requests make perfect sense to me but they are not — with the possible exeption of the script editor — what we've seen in this thread, nor in older threads.
You can do something similar using BaseElements or InspectorPro. That's not really the problem, unfortunately. A place where developers have to "check out" the source code to make modifications. It's been explained that you can have a development server where all developers work from a common code base, but apparently, this is not adequate.
Thank you for your thoughtful followup regarding the counterexample. The Facebook iOS app example makes a lot of sense to me. The definition of the product comes from FMI themselves. It's not Ibrahim being 'myopic in his definition'. And he didn't say just "housewives", he said doctors, lawyers, etc. And there are plenty of housewives who would readily understand those things. The simple fact is, we use FileMaker as a developer tool However, it is not the intent of the software.
And it just may support more than you think. We just may not have access to what it uses. And while the technical stand of MicroSoft is that they "depreciated" the approach, in reality One of it's core products, Excel, being the biggest example.
MDI makes it somewhat easier to have multiple windows using the same code stack. As opposed to launching a completely separate process and then trying to cross data across that boundary It's like carrying a sac of potatoes on your back as you swim in the first leg of a tri-atholon. SDI windows on Windows.
Its unbelievable that FileMaker uses an approach Microsoft deprecated 20 years ago. That goodness Microsoft are less aggressive than Apple when it comes to dumpign backwards compatability. Are you quite sure the current version of Excel is MDI? I can not seem to find a document enclosing window! Some people consider the menu and toolbars embedded in each window may not be the best use of screen realestate but each instance of the window existing free of an overall containing window is the definition of SDI?
Excel no longer works that way. Each sheet is given its own window. I guess we don't really care about the technicalities. MS seem to have found a way to have two excel 'application' windows each with a single Worksheet. Chrome can have multiple windows with or without tabs and popout windows with no toolbars at all.
Opera found a way to have maximised document windows stay maximised when a non maximised window is opened in front. Any of these options would go some way to providing a more consistent experience on both platforms - but I am not at all optimistic as we have been asking for this problem to be resolved for so many years Well mine doesnt look like that!! I can force Windows to open Excel in 2 separate processes. However, nothing works the same. Copying from one spreadsheet to another is bugged It's a well documented problem with Microsoft.
DEFAULT
DEFAULT
1 comment