>VB needs to talk to something....preferably SQL Server....VB also requires
>(arguably) a linger development life cycle becuase of the lack of built-in >data manipulation, inheritance, et al. So ... hence the $20,000 vs $100,000 >statement.
VB can use ADO - to a greater extent than VFP. I can't talk about VB 6 - because of my NDA - but suffice it to say that your jaw will drop a bit when you see some of it's features. I'll leave it at that.
With regard to inheritance. I have come around on this issue. While I still hold that a language must support inheritance to be OO, inheritance is more apt to be overused - and for the wrong reasons. Inhertiance can be your best friend or your worst nightmare.
>I don't disagree -- guns don't kill people, people kill people = the tool >doesn't make the developer, the developer makes the developer. But VB is so >easy to get into and so lacking in structures that would require a strong >technical foundation in basic DP skills that a lack of ability to analyze on >the enterprise scale is not uncommon in "developers" whose primary tool is VB.
I think many Fox developers get too much of a free ride with regard to database analysis and design. I also think too many VB developers get a bad wrap - and are guilty by association. Many VFP developers could not design a good data base if thier lives depended on it. Many VB developers could. On average, I will grant you that a VFP developer is more apt to understand how to build a DB app than a VB developer. But I would caution against making too sweeping of a generalization.
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only