>Thanks to all who replied. This is the friend of
>the guy who started this thread speaking. :)
>
>The question was not put properly or at least only
>half of it was put forth. The first half - already
>stated is the difference in speed execution. The other
>half - is the speed in development.
>
>If you think only PRG against VCX, then PRG is the
>easy loser.
>
>But picture this:
>
>You design your application in terms of classes.
>Specifically, you put the design details ( like what
>are the class names, and the members of each class )
>in text files or dbf.
>
>Next, you 'feed' this design into a CODE GENERATOR.
>The code generator then generates the following:
>1- the dbf files
>2- the nonvisual classes defined in prgs
>3- the visual classes again defined in prgs
>4- the instantiation of these nonvisual and visual classes
>
>And what do you do? Just the real meat of your application -
>the logic of the business and all. The heck with the routine
>form layout and design and all.
>
>The problem is if you design with VCX, you have to do it
>by hand one class after another! The problem also with our
>visual class designer ( or at least as far as we know it )
>is that it provides only one way traffic : you can convert
>your vcx to prg, but no prg to vcx!
>
>Thanks again to everyone who will take the time to read through
>this and give their thoughts - they will help us a lot!

Jet,
You can convert a vcx to a prg and a prg to vcx. Actually scctext provided with each version of VFP can convert a vcx to vca and a vca to vcx too.
I didn't understand CODE GENERATOR part. What CODE GENERATOR are you talking about specifically? Frameworks? If so I don't use them and cannot comment on.
"The problem is if you design with VCX, you have to do it by hand one class after another" - didn't understand this one either. IMHO it's not the case and you could create a visual class in a vcx in code (hack the vcx:).
Cetin