5 pages of xBase code to do what one SQL can do opens the door to huge error margins.
It doesnt take 5 pages of code!:-) It does, however, require that the table strucures and the CDX structures are [well] thought out. If the requirement is understood and the developer does their due diligence - then an xBase solution will out perform a SQL solution. You know this.

SQL solutions eat more resources than iterative solutions. But, that approach requires the developer "envision" the delivered project before a single line of code is written.

If something is thought too complicated to solve withOUT SQL - relations - and temp cursors - then it is too complicated for that developer to solve with xBase. A different developer, with a different set of stratigies may see the solution in different terms. It depends on the developer. What may be complicated to one is not so complicated to another?

Yugos are good cars. They will get us from here to there. Porsches are good cars - they will get us from here to there. The reason a Porsche does it so much better is because the tolerances and allowances are tighter. The Porche [also] probably has fewer moving parts. Which one to build? Depends on the builder's diligence and appreciation for design. Which one to drive? You know this also!

>http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html

I will check this link - thanks!