Technology Poll Results
Posted September 21 1999
Clarion Magazine recently polled its readers on which technologies they considered important, and which they were planning on implementing. Many of the technologies were suggested by newsgroup participants, and there were 127 survey responses. Not all respondents answered all questions, so on each question the number of responses is shown in parentheses.
I would like to say that this survey accurately reflects the Clarion community, but of course that's almost impossible to guarantee. The respondents to this poll all had access to the internet, and most would have learned of the poll through the newsgroups or through notifications to magazine subscribers (the survey was open to non-subscribers also). It may be that restricting the poll to developers on the internet skews the results somewhat, in particular when it comes to internet-related technologies.
As well, any survey is limited in its accuracy. You've probably heard the caveats on political polls: "This poll is accurate to within x percentage points 19 times out of 20." Something similar applies here, though I don't have any figures on the potential inaccuracy of these figures. I'll just say these numbers are probably indicative of something, unless they aren't.
So much for the disclaimers. What follows are some comments on the survey results.
An Aging Population?
The survey asked several general questions before getting on with the list of technologies. I was a bit surprised to see that over three quarters of respondents had been using Clarion for more than five years. On the one hand this should be a concern to Topspeed's marketing division. On the other hand the company clearly enjoys a lot of loyalty.
Years Experience With Clarion (127)
|
Under 1 year |
1 to 3 years |
3 to 5 years |
Over 5 years |
|
3% |
6% |
13% |
78% |
Most developers have also moved to Clarion5. The numbers on the DOS product are probably a bit misleading however as Clarion Magazine doesn't cater to DOS development, and to date hasn't carried any CDD or CDP articles.
Version Currently Used (126)
|
Clarion 5 |
Clarion 4 |
CW 2.x |
CDD |
CPD |
|
96% |
2% |
2% |
0% |
0% |
Although most developers have moved to Clarion5, a sizeable percentage still use the legacy templates. I'm also surprised to see that 6% are hand coders. It would be interesting to know if any of these people are using ABC in hand code.
Development Method (127)
|
Legacy templates |
ABC Templates |
Hand Code |
|
24% |
70% |
6% |
In keeping with the high average number of years with the product, the vast majority of respondents feel they have a good overall knowledge of Clarion, with a fourth considering themselves expert in many areas.
Clarion Skill Level (127)
|
Beginner |
Familiar with |
Good overall knowledge |
Expert in |
Expert in |
|
1% |
4% |
37% |
35% |
24% |
So much for the background of the respondents.
The results of the technology questions are listed in the order they were asked, and are not ranked. If you want to get a quick idea of which technologies are the most important, pay attention to the two center columns: Importance=Essential and Implementation Timeline=Done. By this measure the top technologies among respondents are ODBC, SQL, internet protocols, and object-oriented design methodologies.
|
Importance |
||||
|
None |
Some |
Very |
Essential |
|
|
SQL (125) |
4% |
12% |
24% |
60% |
|
ODBC (119) |
5% |
21% |
31% |
43% |
|
OLEDB (110) |
15% |
32% |
29% |
25% |
|
Microsoft Transaction Server (105) |
26% |
30% |
28% |
17% |
|
Object Databases (106) |
20% |
42% |
26% |
11% |
|
ActiveX (116) |
9% |
17% |
25% |
48% |
|
COM/OLE (117) |
3% |
19% |
30% |
49% |
|
DCOM (108) |
8% |
25% |
28% |
39% |
|
CORBA (104) |
22% |
40% |
22% |
15% |
|
Java Beans (106) |
25% |
48% |
15% |
11% |
|
WindowsCE (107) |
24% |
43% |
21% |
12% |
|
Palm Pilot (106) |
30% |
42% |
22% |
7% |
|
Embedded Systems (97) |
46% |
36% |
14% |
3% |
|
Linxu (108) |
12% |
30% |
39% |
19% |
|
Java (111) |
14% |
35% |
32% |
20% |
|
Clarion Web Edition (115) |
11% |
28% |
31% |
30% |
|
Internet Protocols (117) |
3% |
9% |
27% |
61% |
|
XML (105) |
9% |
26% |
34% |
31% |
|
DHTML (103) |
13% |
30% |
30% |
27% |
|
ICMP (86) |
31% |
37% |
21% |
10% |
|
TCP/IP and Sockets (108) |
4% |
17% |
25% |
55% |
|
MS Remote Access Services (98) |
20% |
40% |
26% |
14% |
|
Winsock (96) |
14% |
23% |
28% |
35% |
|
MS Distributed interNetwork Ar (85) |
32% |
44% |
15% |
9% |
|
OO Design Methodologies (117) |
3% |
12% |
26% |
60% |
|
Unified Modeling Language (95) |
16% |
37% |
29% |
18% |
|
Wizatrons (112) |
17% |
39% |
26% |
18% |
|
Multi-tier architecture (97) |
7% |
23% |
31% |
39% |
|
True OS Threads (98) |
7% |
22% |
35% |
36% |
|
Microsoft Repository (87) |
38% |
45% |
13% |
5% |
|
Voice Recognition (98) |
33% |
34% |
23% |
10% |
|
DirectX (93) |
33% |
40% |
17% |
10% |
|
Artificial Intelligence (93) |
43% |
33% |
16% |
8% |
|
Novel 4.x 5 NDS Access (88) |
48% |
23% |
22% |
8% |
|
Microsoft Message Queue (83) |
28% |
33% |
24% |
16% |
|
Implementation Timeline |
||||||
|
Done |
0-3 Months |
3-6 Months |
6-12 Months |
>12 Months |
No Plans |
|
|
SQL (125) |
42% |
16% |
13% |
10% |
6% |
8% |
|
ODBC (119) |
60% |
9% |
5% |
5% |
2% |
13% |
|
OLEDB (110) |
5% |
15% |
13% |
11% |
5% |
41% |
|
Microsoft Transaction Server (105) |
2% |
4% |
14% |
13% |
10% |
48% |
|
Object Databases (106) |
2% |
3% |
5% |
11% |
18% |
53% |
|
ActiveX (116) |
41% |
13% |
9% |
8% |
2% |
17% |
|
COM/OLE (117) |
30% |
12% |
11% |
14% |
4% |
15% |
|
DCOM (108) |
3% |
9% |
11% |
19% |
6% |
39% |
|
CORBA (104) |
2% |
2% |
10% |
9% |
6% |
63% |
|
Java Beans (106) |
2% |
0% |
8% |
9% |
8% |
59% |
|
WindowsCE (107) |
2% |
4% |
3% |
11% |
10% |
58% |
|
Palm Pilot (106) |
4% |
2% |
2% |
10% |
9% |
63% |
|
Embedded Systems (97) |
4% |
2% |
0% |
5% |
8% |
69% |
|
Linxu (108) |
10% |
6% |
6% |
9% |
16% |
42% |
|
Java (111) |
11% |
5% |
11% |
10% |
12% |
40% |
|
Clarion Web Edition (115) |
22% |
12% |
11% |
18% |
5% |
24% |
|
Internet Protocols (117) |
39% |
12% |
9% |
12% |
3% |
14% |
|
XML (105) |
7% |
6% |
15% |
19% |
9% |
30% |
|
DHTML (103) |
15% |
4% |
7% |
14% |
9% |
34% |
|
ICMP (86) |
2% |
3% |
3% |
5% |
7% |
64% |
|
TCP/IP and Sockets (108) |
24% |
19% |
7% |
10% |
7% |
17% |
|
MS Remote Access Services (98) |
16% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
5% |
44% |
|
Winsock (96) |
27% |
7% |
4% |
6% |
4% |
33% |
|
MS Distributed interNetwork Ar (85) |
2% |
1% |
2% |
7% |
7% |
67% |
|
OO Design Methodologies (117) |
50% |
9% |
5% |
9% |
3% |
15% |
|
Unified Modeling Language (95) |
13% |
2% |
3% |
12% |
11% |
46% |
|
Wizatrons (112) |
18% |
21% |
15% |
8% |
2% |
28% |
|
Multi-tier architecture (97) |
18% |
8% |
9% |
13% |
7% |
32% |
|
True OS Threads (98) |
16% |
8% |
6% |
7% |
4% |
43% |
|
Microsoft Repository (87) |
0% |
0% |
3% |
2% |
2% |
77% |
|
Voice Recognition (98) |
5% |
2% |
4% |
5% |
13% |
58% |
|
DirectX (93) |
3% |
2% |
3% |
4% |
3% |
68% |
|
Artificial Intelligence (93) |
8% |
0% |
1% |
1% |
5% |
69% |
|
Novel 4.x 5 NDS Access (88) |
7% |
3% |
2% |
8% |
1% |
65% |
|
Microsoft Message Queue (83) |
4% |
1% |
5% |
11% |
4% |
64% |
Article comments
Post a comment
You must be logged on to post comments.
Talk To Us!
Search ClarionMag
From the archives
Superfiles and NAME
9/14/2009 12:00:00 AM
Having covered Superfiles in the previous episode, Steve Parker tackles the intricacies of how to set arbitrary names for the tables inside Superfiles.