Magic xpa Application Platform Reviews

We have an inbuilt software development team, so we're using the solution for all of our internal applications. The major application is retail billing software. We also use it for a workflow management system. We're developing more than 90 applications in-house, which are used across all the departments in our corporate office.

We're using version 3.2.

We are using the cloud version of Magic XPA.

We chose this solution because it's very flexible. It allows us to immediately give the solution to the end user. It saves time for our customers. It provides a quicker turnaround of application development and deployment.

The in-memory usage is the most valuable feature. It's very fast when we use the in-memory database.

We can work in the same application with multiple databases. It's very easy and configurable. The gateway is installed, and then we just need to give the server name and connection string. There's a lot of flexibility in the operations.

It's a bit difficult to work with purely web-based applications to get the data and display it. There have been a few times when the connection was disconnected between the server and your browser. The connectivity on browser-built applications needs to be improved.

The mobile application development could be easier. They could include different external applications, like finger sensors. I'm not sure whether it's in version 3.8 or not.

I have used this solution for eight years.

It's stable, but sometimes there are issues with network connectivity. The end user point could also be an issue. We can't say that it's a stability issue, but the internet connectivity could be better. It could be more flexible.

There are three different types of applications. One is the batch process, the second one is the client-server, and the third one is browser-based. I would rate the stability as 9.5 out of 10.

There is a research and development center in India. If we have any issues, we have the option to get in touch with them.

Setup is very easy because we have worked with earlier versions of Magic, like version 9.4, 8.3, and UNIPaaS.

Deployment took 15 minutes. Currently, we have three people for maintenance, including my senior manager, my general manager, and me.

For an organization, it's okay. For an individual person or for a small startup, the license cost is high.

It's a bit expensive, but since we have flexibility of usage, it's worth the cost.

I would rate this solution as 9.5 out of 10.

It's a very robust application, easy to maintain, easy to adopt, and it's easy to give the solution to the end users. Compared to other software, it's very flexible.

I would recommend this solution because of the flexibility. It's easy to develop and saves time. It also saves costs. Compared to the other software, the development cost is effective. There are difficulties in getting properly trained in Magic XPA. Individuals need to invest their time in learning how to use Magic XPA.

We use this solution to develop ERP software for our clients. We have a portfolio of more than 100 clients, from small companies to big ones. I have several enterprise clients, and all of them are running the xpa ERP system. We use xpa to build for the Financial Department, Sales Department, HR, Salaries Department, and so on.

xpa gives us a fast development speed. The most important thing is that it is oriented toward user functionalities.

First, in my personal opinion, being a developer myself and working with web and mobile technologies, I think they're trying to cover all the sectors, and that's the problem. They want to be one toolbox for everything, but primarily, we are using xpa to develop desktop applications, and in that area they're lacking functionalities, flexibility, and modern stuff.

MSC is marketing xpa as a .NET-based solution, but their .NET integration is lousy. For example, in Visual Studio, you put a control, you right click, and you set everything. In xpa, they're using Visual Studio as a basis of the development tool, but you cannot do what I just described. There's also poor integration of third-party tools because, for example, to put something together using the very popular .NET framework and components framework, it takes me at least three times longer than it should. 

We started using this solution because it was fairly easy, and 10 years ago, the speed of development was incomparable to any other tools. My employees can develop and deploy something in a matter of hours. My clients buy from me because we can do everything very fast, but the applications we are currently developing with xpa are kind of outdated. Not the functionalities, because we can do almost everything, but the UI and UX and the mechanics of the application are outdated. The problem is that their grid functionalities are very bad in general. For example, in order to have the ribbon bar like the one you have in Word or Excel, we have to do all kinds of gimmicks and purchase external libraries. That's one of the problems, and that's something I would really like to change. 

I really don't care about the web integration with xpa. I don't need it to be a tool for the API, for the backend, for the frontend, or for mobile applications. I want xpa to be a very powerful tool for desktop applications.

I started using one of the first versions of Magic almost 30 years ago. They've evolved since then, and xpa is the latest iteration. 

This is a stable product.

The solution is scalable. 

The online documentation is okay. The community is not that big because not many users are using xpa because of the pricing, but somehow, it's easier to find the solution online by yourself than it is to communicate with xpa support. The first and second levels of support are not that good or helpful. When you get to some very serious level-three support and up, you can solve everything and they will really help you. However, you pay for this level of support, and sometimes it's just easier to find a way around.

I would still rate the support as a four out of five, because if you pay for it, then it's okay. 

When it comes to development, it's okay. When you master it, it's straightforward. Of course, it takes some time for a junior developer to understand what should go where and how, but it's nice. 

I would give the setup process a five out of five.

They have, in general, two types of licensing. They have a runtime license and a development license. I use the development license for the development process, and in order to have customers, I have to purchase deployment licenses. Those licenses can be per server, per user, per computer, or something else. There are all kinds of combinations. 

The problem is that I put time and effort into it and pay for the development license, and then I can't sell it to my client as is. They have to purchase additional licenses in order to use what I built. It's not a fair approach. Let me buy the development suite or a pack of licenses. There is no need for them to put the burden on the clients to pay for the licenses.

Even worse is how to explain that to a client. Many times I get a response from a client saying, "Your software is good, but why do I have to pay additionally? I'm paying for the software, but the prices for those licenses are quite expensive." If a company has 100 users, that'll easily add a few thousand dollars to the invoice. 

I'm trying to position myself on the market as affordable, but then I go to the client, and they say, "Actually, we have 150 users, not 70." I have to say, "Oh, okay. That means my price is not this one, the price is higher." For example, I might tell my clients, "Okay, the new seat for my application is $30 per user." Then, they have to pay $120 for the xpa license, so it's $150 instead of $30. That's a lot. They are pretty much forced to pay for the license or they cannot use the application. 

In certain cases, for example, whenever I have something simple with many users, I will go with something else and not use xpa. I would rate the pricing as a two out of five, especially if you combine the complexity of developing something modern and up-to-date with the licensing model and overall pricing. It's not possible to develop very modern Windows-based applications because of the technical limitations, and then we have the very bad and highly-priced end user licensing model.

I would recommend this solution, but my advice is to lower your expectations and focus on the pure functionalities. If you just care about the functionalities and robust environment and stability, try this solution. If you want something with a nice modern look and feel, then maybe you should consider others.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

I've been working as an independent contractor, software designer, software architect, and programmer for over 25 years. The clients I've had have been in different branches, but mostly in the banking and insurance fields. The applications that I used Magic to develop were mostly in banking and insurance and they varied from native client server applications to web applications.

The best feature of Magic is the development time. The time it takes to develop something is incredibly fast if you compare Magic with, for example, Java. Magic is faster at developing to achieve the same goal. That's the main reason why I like it so much.

There is room for improvement in Magic's marketing and licensing. If you talk to people about Magic, there is a pretty big chance that no one's ever heard about it. It's not mainstream like .NET or Java, and that's because of the marketing and licensing strategy of the company. They never put an emphasis on marketing, so now it's unknown. 

When programmers first came into contact with Magic, they saw the benefits, but they had to pay for a development license or a one-time license. I think that's the main disadvantage of Magic because that's a big threshold preventing Magic from being a mainstream competitor among Java and .NET.

As for new features, I would like to see more integration of web functionality. Client-side intelligence, rather than service-side, and done in an easy way. It's already possible, but there is still some work for you to do as the developer. The most standard functions could be automated a bit more.

I've been using Magic products and their programming tool for over 25 years. The xpa version only came out a few years ago, but that's just another release. It has had different names throughout the years. Now it's xpa, before that it was uniPasS, before that it was eDeveloper, and before that it was just Magic. I've been using all of these products from the very beginning.

This is a stable product. I have developed many business critical applications. In banking, there are a lot of rules in terms of compliance. Your products need to be stable and safe, and Magic meets those requirements.

It is a scalable product. You can add more computing power by adding more Magic engines if your application grows bigger.

Especially in the beginning, when xpa first came out, it had some minor bugs, so I contacted the technical support department for help with those. I would rate their tech support as a four and a half out of five. They have a dedicated support platform where you can log in and create a ticket. The employees on the support platform are quite skilled and knowledgeable, so I'm quite happy with it.

Positive

For a simple Windows PC where you want to develop a small application within a freeware database, then the setup is pretty straightforward. On the other hand, it might become a bit more complicated for an AS/400 machine with a native DB2 database where you need to install additional connectors and gateways.

I think someone using this solution will quickly see a ROI. 

The licensing cost varies because nowadays Magic has tailor-made offerings for clients, including one-time use licenses. It also depends on how you are using the solution. Are you using a web application? Because that's a different license strategy than native Magic applications. For a web application, you only pay for the engine that runs on the web server and it doesn't matter if you are servicing 100 users or 100,000 users. You cannot convert that cost into a cost per user.

I think the solution is worth the money. 

I compared Magic with .NET and Java. The main reasons I chose Magic were the speed to develop something and the flexibility with which you can develop.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud as a service, as well as native on various platforms. The beauty of Magic is that it's platform and database independent. You can deploy it as a web application, a native application, or on mainframes or Unix or Linux service, so it's quite flexible.

My advice to someone using this platform for the first time is to get a decent course by a licensed and skilled Magic professional, rather than trying to figure it out from the books. The learning curve is quite steep, and if you have someone who can explain it to you, rather than trying to figure it out on your own, you will have a better chance at success.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten because of the time it takes to develop something, the scalability, and the platform and database independency. 

In our company, we manage internal systems and have recently expanded our offerings to include offsite companies in Thailand and the Philippines. Our system provides HR solutions and production systems, with a focus on data management and planning. We use the Magic xpa Application Platform to track the release and receipt of parts from suppliers, the production of finished goods, and the delivery of the product to customers. If the customer finds defects, the product is returned to us for further analysis in the production process. This is a general overview of how our systems typically operate.

The Magic xpa Application Platform is very suitable for production since it is easy to update. The program is simple to upgrade and deploy. The solution is convenient in production. You need to adjust the data, then adjust the program which is not difficult.

Throughout my career, I've encountered difficulties when integrating new technologies with Magic xpa Application Platform. In particular, when attempting to incorporate features from other development languages into earlier versions of the solution called uniPaaS. I struggled to integrate .NET components due to the limited options available. This made the process more challenging and complicated. I find it challenging to create a more user-friendly experience for users who may be comparing the system to other systems they have used outside or within the company on different platforms.

Currently, I have encountered an issue as I am engaged in mobile development utilizing the Magic xpa Application Platform. The process of releasing on iOS is more complex compared to Android, and in future iterations of the solution, the integration of the iOS platform would be of great advantage. This is because when it comes to deployment, the procedure is more demanding in the case of iOS compared to Android.

I have been using the Magic xpa Application Platform for approximately 11 years.

The solution is stable. We've been using it ever since the company started. The company is growing well, and we upgraded to the latest version. It is a good solution. 

We have approximately 40 developers using the solution. 

The initial setup of the Magic xpa Application Platform can be difficult. However, once you are used to it it is not difficult. All you need to do is install it.

The deployment can take less than one hour to do.

I rate the initial setup of the Magic xpa Application Platform an eight out of ten.

We have seen a return on investment using the Magic xpa Application Platform. However, they should consider lowering the license because it is expensive, but this can also depend on the nature of the business and the number of users. There are use cases where the solution will not be worth the money.

There are different licenses, we have the application and the online application. There are two different licenses for two different program sites for the Magic xpa Application Platform.

We choose this solution over others because it is easy to maintain and to keep it going. Since the company's main business is production in a factory when the customer needs something, it is easy for them to update the program. Then after the customer request or the customer order, you can easily change it back.

Every time I train new hires in our section, the first thing I ask is if they are familiar with Microsoft Access because the Magic xpa Application Platform is similar to Microsoft Access. It's a table-driven programming language. It's very different from the old languages but it is table driven, it is direct to the point, and you access and manipulate data directly.

Acquiring an understanding of the functioning of the engine makes it possible to perform any task related to it with ease and speed without encountering any intricate deployment issues. The setup process for the environment is straightforward and once completed, it provides simple access to both development and production data. Furthermore, the Magic xpa software continues to evolve and improve over time, providing updates and enhancements to its users. The Magic xpa community is also a positive aspect, contributing to its overall excellence.

I rate the Magic xpa Application Platform an eight out of ten.

My company uses the Magic xpa Application Platform for document management. The company developed a system for document management thirty years ago, which runs on the Magic xpa Application Platform.

What I found most valuable in the Magic xpa Application Platform is that it has a client-server and web browser technology that's perfect for company users.

In the past, my company didn't need to add product developments, but over the years, you have to know more about your systems, and there is also more demand. For example, my company uses .NET to meet all demands, and it would be great if the Magic xpa Application Platform could offer more security and special functions similar to .NET.

In the next version of the Magic xpa Application Platform, I want tables or small programs where I can directly add expressions. I can do it on SQL, but it would make life much easier if that specification were added to the Magic xpa Application Platform. My company has been asking for this for years, but it's still unavailable.

I've worked with the Magic xpa Application Platform since it was introduced in 1990 or 1991.

The Magic xpa Application Platform is very, very stable.

Magic xpa Application Platform is a very scalable solution. My company doesn't have thousands of users, but it installed the solution for about two hundred users. Magic xpa Application Platform is perfect for that number and use case, though I'm unsure if it's still scalable for thousands of users.

The Magic xpa Application Platform technical support could be better. My company seldom contacts support. I get support only when there's a new release or a weird or highly complex issue.

I'm not satisfied with the technical support for the Magic xpa Application Platform because my team knows better than the current support team. Customers call my company to ask questions related to the Magic xpa Application Platform, so my team gets a lot of calls. In a way, my company also supports customers using the solution.

Before 1990, I worked with a different solution, Speed Two, known as APPX today. It's probably the most advanced application and was developed in 1981 in Seattle, and it's similar to the Magic xpa Application Platform, but it's running on Linux and Unix.

Installing the Magic xpa Application Platform was more complicated in version 4.9 than in all other versions. It could be the 64-bit version that's problematic setup-wise.

How long it takes to deploy the Magic xpa Application Platform depends on whether it's client-server or work-based. My company doesn't work with the rich internet application because it's more complicated. My company works with the web browser or platform, particularly the Angular platform, which is relatively easy to install. You need to know how to install it, but my team has done it so many times that the team doesn't need to think about it and does it.

Deploying the Magic xpa Application Platform is a process of downloading, installing, then running it. You must use the correct settings and files to set up the addresses and connect.

Problems only arise because of server security settings, but my company has a guide to address that problem.

The main problem with the Magic xpa Application Platform is pricing. You have to pay a lot of money for development, and you also have to pay a lot for the deployments and runtime, while in most competitors, you have to pay a lot for one of the two and not both.

It's at least seven thousand Euros, and the cost makes it challenging to get new developers, and it isn't easy to convince customers to go for the Magic xpa Application Platform. My company has lost a lot of customers because of this problem.

The solution has a free version but only allows one user at a time, so it's difficult to test it, even when you can develop for free. My company has a free version, but that version is only used occasionally.

My team evaluated Clarion, and though it was cheaper and easier to use, it lacks some of the functionalities in the Magic xpa Application Platform. The team also assessed an old system that was popular twenty years ago, but it was too complicated, so my team couldn't recommend it.

I mostly have experience with the Magic xpa Application Platform.

My company uses the Magic xpa Application Platform. Customers use it too.

I'm using version 4.9 of the Magic xpa Application Platform.

My company has four high-level developers in charge of the solution.

Deploying the Magic xpa Application Platform typically requires one person, but two members would be enough to deploy the solution if you want to educate additional members. If you're doing the deployment for virtual servers, you can install the servers online. My team does that from Denmark for customers in Vienna, Geneva, and New York.

I don't have advice for people planning to use the Magic xpa Application Platform because my current focus is trying to convince companies to go for the solution. It's not well known, so it's harder to sell.

It's been thirty years since I started using the Magic xpa Application Platform, and I'm rating it as ten out of ten.

My company is a reseller of  the Magic xpa Application Platform, though no longer the leading reseller in Scandinavia.

I use the latest version and its predecessor. 

We use the solution in respect of membership organizations which are in charge of memberships, subscriptions and donations. 

The solution makes the managing and adapting of the software very easy. When it comes to the application's service, mistakes can easily be resolved. This shortens the time it takes to progress from an idea to a new function. 

The solution's most valuable feature involves its ability to integrate well with Oracle, a product we have also been using. 

The solution is complex and has a long learning curve. I am not referring to its initial setup, which is very simple, but its use. 

Support is very bad. The main focus is placed on their own customers, big banks and big insurance companies, so those, like us, who are independent software vendors, are ignored. 

While I have tentative, though not definite, plans to increase the usage, the solution suffers from certain weaknesses, such as its essential lack of an internet web interface, a feature I really want. 

I rate the solution as a nine out of ten, since everything about it is good, save for the internet connectivity.

Everything having to do with the internet is underperformed, which is not good. This is my main issue with the solution.

The licensing is too costly. The runtime cost is very expensive, especially in respect of a big server with many clients. So too, the development tool is expensive, as is the yearly maintenance cost. 

While the solution is perfect for one who wishes to make local, standalone solutions on a Windows network or computer with an Oracle database, it is not well suited for internet-or-cloud-based distributed systems.

I have been using the latest version of Magic xpa Application Platform for around two years, but an earlier version since the mid-nineties. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is highly scalable, allowing one to use very large databases and systems.

We have tentative, though indefinite, plans to increase the usage. 

Support is very bad. The main focus is placed on their own customers, big banks and big insurance companies, so those, like us, who are independent software vendors, are ignored.

We use Oracle, in addition to Magic xpa Application Platform.

Prior to using Magic xpa Application Platform, in the late eighties-early nineties, we had our own tool which was made by some of our programmers. Their ideas were really good. Then. I discovered Magic xpa Application Platform, with which those same ideas were implemented. So. we used C++ and made all the tools our own. 

We did not compare Magic xpa Application Platform to another product prior to going with it. 

The solution is very easy to install. 

The period from installation, through configuration, and until use takes around a half-an-hour. 

I handled the setup on my own. 

I handle the maintenance on a part time basis. Maintenance is also one of Magic's strengths, software maintenance being done with ease. 

In spite of the solution's high cost, we see a very large return on our investment. It allows one to develop extremely fast and make specific customized solutions to fit the bill of each customer with tremendous simplicity. As such, the solution may be worth its high expense.

The licensing is too costly. The runtime cost is very expensive, especially in respect of a big server with many clients. So too, the development tool is expensive, as is the yearly maintenance cost.

There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fee. 

In spite of the solution's high cost, we see a very large return on our investment. It allows one to develop extremely fast and make specific customized solutions to fit the bill of each customer with tremendous simplicity. As such, the solution seems worth its high expense. 

I have around 15 users.

I rate Magic xpa Application Platform as a nine out of ten, since everything is really good about it save for its internet connectivity. 

Our primary use is for supporting SUS (Software Update Service) services for IoT (Internet of Things). 

The most valuable feature is the speed of development. It can be used on any platform and most databases are supported by it automatically.

The company has now released version 4 for web development. But this new release is still pretty hard to use for mobile and web development because it was not improved as much as we expected in the areas of user-friendliness or development-friendliness. In general, the interface is okay, but to achieve a final result, it is not very friendly for developers.

It could be improved by adding services that can be automated. This will be a major improvement in functionality.

Magic xpa is pretty stable. We don't experience problems with it.

As far as scalability it is okay. It can be used on a single machine to working with it on the Cloud and everything else in between. So, scalability is no problem.

I don't know exactly how many people use our products, but according to some estimations, there are more than two million users. In our company, there are just four people using the product directly for development.

Depending on the projects we have, we may scale our usage. We make teams depending on the projects we get and scale as we need to. We don't have immediate needs to scale.

The initial set up for common usage is pretty simple. Maybe set up for some environments — like a mobile environment — it is a little bit more tricky, but it is still okay. The setup for the more difficult environments only have to be done once and then it is okay.

The initial set up can be done by yourself. It is not difficult to deploy in most situations without any consultation.

The pricing for the product is a little high. The problem is the license for the development version of xpa has to be paid for, and then also the runtime has to be paid in addition. So it is not an optimal solution for a developer because of the additional runtime costs.

I came to IT Central Station because I wanted to see some comparisons and reviews for mobile platform developer tools. I was wondering if there were other tools I should consider for mobile development that might be easier to use. I did not consider anything specifically to replace Magic xpa.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Magic xpa as an eight.

My advice to others looking at Magic xpa is: I think this is a good tool for making some nice applications independent of the operating system, database, and environment. It is also the quickest development tool on the market. I recommend it but you must be willing to pay for the privilege of using it.

We switched to Magic xpa because in the old fashioned version we were at the end and we had to buy a new SS. In the old fashioned Magic, we didn't have the opportunity to have browser controls, to send or receive emails, communicate with external resources, and so on. With xpa, we have that ability.

Magic is rapid, it's a tool which we use to develop, change and maintain our programs. xpa has a lot more features onboard and it gives us the opportunity to do such things so that we can easily adapt and maintain our programs. It gives certain benefits to stay with our customers and the market. 

It's a product we know but they use modern tools and give us the ability to connect with the world outside Magic. For us, it's more internet applications, not so much the mobile thing. We also like the web service and the ability to communicate with other systems. In the old fashioned version we had to work with text files and so on, and now we can use the XML. It has the ability to create XML in an easier way.

When you have several tasks, you open a screen in a subtask in developing mode, then you don't see the parent screens.

Debugging .NET snippets is not possible, so it lacks the effects to solve problems. First you have to write and test your .NET code  in VS. Then you have to copy the .NET code in Magic XPA because there is almost nothing to debug it. 

The older versions are more stable. They have a lot of upgrades. We don't have too much trouble with them, but it's very difficult to create a very stable database. We have other things that influence Magic. Sometimes when there are problems and we look deeper into the issue, we see that it's the developer's fault. Where we have problems is sometimes in printing and connecting to other things, and sometimes it's the underlying operating system doesn't always work on Windows. The VCO also differs between Windows 7 and Windows 10. The behavior is sometimes different. Due to that, it's not always ready.

We don't have a lot of problems with scalability. They say it's very scalable, but there are things we really don't use, don't apply, or don't have a lot of experience with. I don't have a lot of experience with scalability. 

We have a contract with their technical support but we don't always use it. The users' group in my opinion is better. With technical support when you have a problem, you have to say the problem, give examples, and sources. It's too much overlay. Users groups try to solve the problem, and most of all, you get the answer there for the problem.

The initial setup was not so easy. We skipped a number of versions and applied a lot of things that were new in our version, in our software, that we didn't before. When we first began, it took a lot of time to learn how to do things and it wasn't so easy. It was a lot of very tough thinking and programming. In the old version of Magic, version 7, it was more programming. Now it's more event-driven. It's easier to maintain than before.

It's not cheap. 

The licenses are not cheap. Not at all. They cost much money. There are other tools with free licenses but Magic asks for a lot of money.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. A ten is for something that is perfect and nothing is perfect. I would recommend this product but if you want a cheap product, this solution is not that. A lot of programmers must be Java or .NET. and use Magic for creating database-driven applications. Magic has a lot of advantages. We work with database applications and for our use, Magic is a very good product.

Police records management and emergency nanagement.

The police application is an xpa 3.2 Windows client/server solution that uses Pervasive PSQL and utilizes remote desktop services for remote access.

The emergency management solution also uses the xpa 3.2 and Pervasive PSQL Windows client/server solution, along with an xpa 3.2 RIA mobile Android application for field reporting of road closures and utility damage.

Typically an experienced Magic developer can do the work of two to three experienced C#/.NET developers. Customers are amazed at how quickly most new features can be added and bug fixes implemented. I have worked for four employers - including myself - using Magic, and in most instances, bug fixes are addressed and deployed in under six hours.

When shops decide to move away from Magic to other environments, one of the thorniest issues they immediately confront is customer dissatisfaction with turnaround time on bugs. When talking to a prospective customer this is a huge advantage.

My company has always used Magic. It allows me to respond faster to customer needs than my competitors. Magic is built for data manipulation and is extremely efficient at it. My applications include their own reporting, auditing, and Help Desk features, written in Magic. There is no need for third-party reporting tools (except for charting), Help Desk solutions, or a DBA to query logs.

Years ago I was working on a law enforcement data sharing project and a police chief was skeptical that I could pull off everything promised since I was the sole developer. In an attempt to prove his point, he asked me to add a field to a data entry form and include an error check for a range of values. He was willing to break for lunch to give me time to complete the task. I asked him to pour himself a fresh cup of coffee and it would be done. By the time he sat down the requested changes had been implemented and were on the screen for his review. It turned out he had been asking his current vendor for similar changes for almost two years. He has been a customer since 2001. You will find this to be a common story among Magic developers.

• Speed of development and database connectivity (MS SQL, Oracle, DB2, Btrieve/Pervasive PSQL, ODBC, MySql, and SQLite).  
  
• The ability to use the same development environment for both Windows and Android applications. Magic xpa also supports iOS applications.

• The configuration of the xpa RIA mobile environment is complex and a discouragement to new developers.
• Magic's documentation can be less than complete at times which leads to frustration for new developers. (I encourage new Magic developers to join the Magic Users Group).
• The Android environment is missing a number of functions for file/folder manipulation, sending receiving text messages (SMS) and the menuing options are limited. For now, it is left to the developer to write his/her own Java functions to include in the APK.
• It is missing basic charting tools for bar/pie/series charts. It is left to the developer to acquire and deploy charting tools or the customer to purchase a third-party reporting tool to produce charts.
• I would like to see a spell checker included with optional language support. Currently, this has to be purchased from a third-party.
• There is also an issue with table control sorting of data that does not result in an additional database call.
• The ability to display page up, page down, top and bottom buttons along the scroll bar would make my mouse-reliant customers happy.

As with any development tool, some versions are better than others. I have never had a problem with application's stability, but I have also never deployed a .0 release.

Scalability is not a Magic issue, it is dependent on the RDBMS.

Tech support has become more responsive over the years. In most cases, they want an example of your code, which is reasonable, but not always practical. I wish they would be more willing to remote in and take a look at the problem.

Magic offers free training classes at their South California office. It would be helpful if they expanded the training of locations to the Mid-West, Northeast, and Southeast. Additional training facilities would encourage more developers to try it if they could get three days of free training. The best place for newcomers seeking advice or help is the Magic Users Group.

The client/server configuration is straightforward. The RIA mobile setup and configuration of your development environment to generate an APK is challenging. RIA requires a web server be properly configured, which the installation handles fairly well, but not completely. If you decide to set up your web server after installing Magic, it is a manual operation. I recommend going through the experience of manually configuring the web server and broker (middleware between the web server and Magic runtime engine) to fully understand how all the constituent parts work together. It is invaluable for troubleshooting problems at a customer site.

Generating an Android APK that includes custom Java and company branding takes some time for a non-Android developer to master. It requires the Java SDK and Android Studio. When properly configured it works well, but it requires patience and determination to get there.

The Magic documentation has improved over the years, but can still be a bit fuzzy. MSE has started posting youtube "how to" videos which are helpful. I find the videos posted by users to be the most helpful. Magic also comes with a number of sample applications that demonstrate all the various features/functions. I highly recommend reviewing the sample applications.

Magic is not the cheapest IDE out there. If you are considering Magic xpa, you should do a cost-benefit analysis to feel comfortable with your decision. The Magic sales staff is very helpful in providing pricing.

In 1994, Visual Basic and Power Builder were the other contenders. I went with Magic because of the number of development competitions it won at the time.

I have been using Magic since 1994. I started with version 5.5 for a district attorney defendant-tracking system. Just two of us wrote an entire solution in six months, including data translation from a Sperry MAPPER system to Novell NetWare Btrieve. I have worked in versions 5.x, 8.x, 9.x, uniPaaS 1.8/1.9 and xpa 3.x.

The Magic community is relatively small and tight-knit. Perhaps the best resource available to any new Magic developer is the Magic Users Group on Groups.io. Members are incredibly generous with their time and willingness to share solutions. Group members organize an annual conference whose focus is purely technical.

Be patient and you will be rewarded. Magic is not a procedural language. It is designed to work with rows of data. If you understand how the Magic engine works, you will double your productivity within a couple of months.

Magic xpa is the primary development tool for software that manages healthcare information for about 100,000 people. This information includes demographic data, employment history, coverages, enrolled plans, claims, payments, etc., and it is exchanged via a variety of media including paper forms, standard 832 files, and custom text files.

Being able to make changes to existing programs to comply with last minute changes in requirements, and/or being able to fix, test, review, and deploy new code in a manner of hours instead of days, definitely gives us a huge advantage over our competitors and this is only possible thanks to Magic’s speed of programming.

Three major features keep me working with Magic:

1. Magic’s unique approach to development ensures that the programmer stays focused on the objective of the program (i.e. display all customers in California), instead of the repetitive tasks that surround it (i.e. connect to database, open customers table, create the query to retrieve records within the specified criteria, fetch the result of the query, connect it to a data grid, etc.).
2. Magic’s Database Gateway allows the logic of the program to be isolated from the underlying database. This provides the flexibility not only to move existing programs to different database environments without the need to change the logic in the program but also allows the programmer access to different databases without the need to know how to "talk" to them.
3. Without the need to compile code, the time spent in the development cycle is greatly reduced, allowing the programmer to test modifications to a program immediately after they have been saved.

Magic’s lack of documentation, in both the educational and technical fields, has been a thorn in my side since I can remember.

I worked for Magic at the US branch for several years as a consultant, as part of the tech support staff, and as the main instructor for both Magic xpa and Magic xpi.

I had to write my own study guide to be able to teach Magic v8.x, eDeveloper, uniPaaS and Magic xpa to people who were new to these tools. Magic’s own training material only consisted of either printed PowerPoint presentations inside a binder or a self-paced PDF document. The latter did not follow a clear programming methodology path or even instructions on what components to select during the first installation of the tool.

Magic has a tradition, when it adds new technologies/features to the Magic development tool, to provide either no documentation or documentation that does not provide an organized approach for bringing this new technology/feature to experienced Magic programmers.

I sometimes joke that while you could connect any two people on the planet through six degrees of separation, connecting any two Magic programmers would only need three degrees.

Most of the time new Magic programmers are the result of a company that already uses Magic as its programming platform hiring new developers because the old ones are retiring. At the annual Magic gathering, new faces are few and far between.

Magic has always struggled to bring new developers to its tools. The company has been working in the USA for more than 30 years and still cannot find a way to bring new people to its side of the fence.

I have been working with this tool continuously for the last 30 years. Since the good ol’ days of DOS and Magic v5.02, v5.5, v7.0, v8.0, eDeveloper, uniPaaS, and Magic xpa.