>>Jeff stated, "VFP versus .NET". Most .NET shops use the Enterprise version.

Just as most VFP developers doing web and portable devices use addons.

>>I would never use the standard edition for a development project, so I certainly wouldn't utilize it for this.

But you'd require a VFP developer to do so.

>>Once again, Jeff stated VFP versus .NET. He did not say, "VFP plus this, plus this, plus this". You yourself found Jeff's terms very fair. An allowance for those tools is an admission/acknowledgement that .NET contains these things, and that VFP is lacking in those areas out of the box.

First, Jeff's terms were broad. He sought no limits, apart from defining the goals and specifying SQL Server for the data.

Second, I'm very happy to acknowledge that the $2499 version of VS.NET comes with heaps of goodies. That's just a fact. My "point" is that we don't want the contest polluted because one contestant is fully armed and the other is required to compete naked. That's just silly.

>>Developers aren't always going to judge whether asynch processing is necessary. The application requirements drive that.

OK. We don't know what the application requirements are yet, but you've sought that requirement. QED.

Look, the purpose of the contest is to contrast and compare. If VFP is lousy at something, how do developers manage it? If C# is lousy at something else, how do they respond? There is absolutely no need to impose arbitrary hurdles.