Talk:Harbour (programming language)

File:Harbour-logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Harbour-logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harbour (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706053607/http://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/ to https://sourceforge.net/softwaremap/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.openhub.net/p/compare?metric=Activity&project_0=harbour+project&project_1=xHarbour+Extended+Harbour+Compiler
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.appsolutions.com/Classy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Strange English

As a one time dBase III+, then Clipper V, programmer, I am hoping to use Harbour to write new routines. While having no wish to impugn in the slightest the IT skills of Harbour's present developers, I notice that some parts of the article are written as though by someone unfamiliar with technical English, e.g., some definite articles are omitted (as in eastern European languages) or sentences are simply ungrammatical.

Examples:
1. "xBase technologies often is confused with a RDBMS software. Although this is true, xBase is more than a simple database system as the same time xBase languages using purely DBF can not provide full concept of a real RDBMS."
2. "As of 2009–2010, Harbour has seen a huge increase in its adoption while xHarbour decline as can be seen on its mailing list."
3. "Latest Macro compiler can compile any valid Harbour code including code to pre-process before compile."
4. "Harbour as every xBase language is case insensitive and can optionally accept keywords written just by first four characters."

I would be happy to correct these but don't wish to step on anyone's toes in the program's community. I will make amendments only if there are no objections on this page. Humboles (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Excessive description of control structures

Hi everyone,

this page was suggested to me for copy-editing and after looking through the content, I would agree that it might be a good idea to re-write a couple of paragraphs and delete others. The main point I stumbled upon was the in-depth description of control structures (if/else and for-loops), which I do not think are a necessary part of an encyclopedic article on a programming language (same goes for many other paragraphs such as OOP, but one at a time). I think this could be dramatically shortened or deleted altogether. What are your opinions? Anneluka (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)