I totally agree you, and I have been thinking on this for quite a few months. INSERT is technically superior, "more modern", and yields code better suited for upgrades to SQL, but REPLACE has a much better syntax. It is easier to maintain and less prone to errors.

Every time that I have to write a statement to update several fields I'm confonted with the same dilemma: INSERT state of the art, or REPLACE easier to write-maintain.

>Is it just me or is
>
>REPLACE ;
> field1 with expression1, ;
> field2 with expression2 ;
> field3 with expression3 ;
> IN alias
>
>You can't get the fields out of synch with the values.
>
>Easier to read/maintain/modify than:
>
>INSERT INTO alias ;
> (field1, ;
> field2, ;
> field3) ;
> VALUES ;
> (expression1, ;
> expression2, ;
> expression3)
>
>If the field list gets out of synch with the values, that's going to be messy. Not only that, but with a longer list of fields, the chances of error goes up.
>
>Besides the advantages of doing the equivalent of an append blank and a replace all at the same time AND SQL compatibility, what other benefits are there to INSERT in VFP?