Not yet, but we use Powerbuilder quite heavily, and hope to take the XP plunge on an upcoming project. We also have a substantial amount of logic in the backend database as Transact-SQL, which will make things even more interesting. My fear is that XP will be crushed by the monolith of our code base. Stay tuned. -- BillMorrow
We are using 6.5. We have tried to go to 7.0, but there have been to many problems. I recently did tried using C3 to do a simple PFC based prototype. It was quite unstable. I ended up reverting back to 6.5. What I found especially troubling was the fact that every time I changed an ancestor object, I had to regen all decendents or things would crash. This would make OO programming especially difficult.
Update: When this project went into maintenance, the developer who made changes to it did not keep the tests up to date so I've now dropped them completely. <sigh>
-- JohnUrberg
Have to agree with you on the PB 6.5 vs. 7.0x situation. We have encountered far too many dll-level errors in our existing (& formerly-working) PB 7 apps (including those of a non-XP nature). And owing to what we laughingly call, "PowerBuilder Tech Support," the switch from 6.5 to 7.0 has roundly been deemed a bad move by all parties concerned.
As a result, we have dropped our PB XP project in favor of a Perl/PB implementation of XP. (See: LockheedMartinResearchAndDevelopment for all of the gory details.)
-- LoganGraves?
Has anyone else had any luck using Rational Robot/RobotJ in an XP environment?
-- JoeParks?
PB stinks as ever! It is simply unusable! Put it in garbage if you can afford!
This page mirrored in ExtremeProgrammingRoadmap as of April 29, 2006