Russell,

If you would just make comments that are based in reality, I think you would get a lot more respect.

Such as the lack of new development with VFP. I don't recall the details, but you stated you do most of your work with off the shelf accounting. I would expect that the majority of your work then is maintenance, or adding a feature here or there. I am working with accounting apps now also. Strictly maintenance. There just isn't too much new development going on with VFP.

VFP is just not a truly great language. It is A LANGUAGE. If it was truly a GREAT LANGUAGE, there would be many programmers complaining. I work or are around many Java or .Net programmers. Not a peep from any of them about the lack of a local data engine.

Also, I am not sure about the statement made here many, many times that VFP developers are better then others for whatever the reason of the day is. There are never, ever interesting discussions about advanced oop features here. Or such things as UML, System design etc. The closest is Rich S. and Walter going round about strong typing. But to me Walter's argument is totally based on theory. I've always been pleased by the compiler alerting me to errors if I fail to initialize a variable properly. And has been stated to Walter by Martin, there are some advanced oop designs that require strong typing so you can properly make use of polymorphism.

There are others who are interested in working on more advanced IT projects then app maintenance. These days that requires Java or .Net experience. And also a team of developers. You are attempting to discuss technology with folks who are on a totally different plain then you. And unfortunately, VFP has always been looked down at by other programmers. There are reasons why you don't here a roar over the demise of VFP. More like a little peep in the grand scheme of things.

PF

>Once again, you mischaracterize what I said to further your own "argument". I've got no time for this anymore and there's no point in continuing this discussion.
>
>>I'm sure you'd like to think my thorough disbelief of your "quote" is due to convenience, Russell, because that would absolve you of responsibility. The truth is I refuse to believe because you have yet to show me this "quote" exists outside the context of your own mind. "*Some* friend heard *some* quote at *some* discussion at *some* seminar?" These are the "facts" you refer to??? Give me a break! This sounds more like a Monty Python sketch transcript than a believable reference. I'm waiting for the part where you say "wink, wink, nudge, nudge... know what I mean?"
>>
>>It's unfortunate I have to be the first one in your life to inform you that this type of "quote" doesn't cut it... not in the real world, not in cyberspace. Especially when it's used to publicly slander someone. And shamefully cloaking your behavior in the word "criticism" doesn't change your reponsibility.
>>
>>---J