>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.