Me too, VFP is much better. My point is that I don't want to give up just because I read about some ABCD... revolutionary concept. I know that my point means nothing but it's just to fell myself better :)
BTW, why it's 3-tier? IMO, 4-tier app looks much more exciting :).

>Hi Ed ---
>
>I vaguely remember that topic. As to VB....unless there is a really good reason to go to it for the front-end (like thin client), then why should I? I like VFP's OOP capabilities much better.
>
>
>>>Hey everyone!
>>>
>>>Some of the threads being posted about MS lack of commitment to VFP and Tech-Ed have got me to thinking about VFPs role in the VS world and how we should be thinking about the product:
>>>
>>>We've got to stop thinking of VFP as a primary database development tool. It's obvious that MS has Access on the low-end and SQL Server on the high-end slated for those roles. What I propose is:
>>>
>>>The Second Big Fox Paradigm Shift: A redefining of how we use Fox similar to the adjustments we had to make when VFP was first released. What we have to focus on now is VFP as a RAD/OOP development language. Forget DBFs. Use the DBC as a data wrapper for SQL Server or Oracle data. Make virtual 3-tier applications with VFP on the front-end and VFP COM servers in the middle working hand-in-hand with MTS to an enterprise database.
>>>
>>>The DBF file format is a noose. Dump it. The Fox Database is dead, long live Visual FoxPro!
>>
>>John, we had chance to discuss this 'problem' in chatter room, and you probably remember what I said there. I thoroughly try to abstain from these 'productive' topics here on main UT, but, alas, not always can afford. What's you actually saying it's not the 'Second', it's the last Paradigm.
>>For all other people here (remembering too familiar mind shift): I do use VB and SQL.