>Noam Chomsky offered a statistic that implied 23% of Americans beleive in "totalitarianism". That means the guys with the gold were dvined it - and that the manufaturer, and not the consumer, has priority.
>
>My customers are always right.
Really? What if your customer wants you to do something unethical or illegal? Is he right then?
Also, keep in mind that MS customers number in the millions. What one customer needs may not be what another needs. In order to satisfy one customer, another's need may have to be ignored or postponed for a later release. Developing mass market products is quite different than one-off custom applications, the typical market that VFP developers are in.
>
>
Depends on your need, but keep in mind that ActiveX is a COM technology and not "strategic" to MS.>Then why are MS dialogs and utilities filled with OCX?
Because they are older dialogs in older products. Again, it takes resources to rewrite those dialogs...and if they're working, why change them just for the sake of change.
>
>Without OCX - our apps are just glamorous dBase II programs.
Really? It depends on your needs. I can create amazing applications all in VFP code.
>
>
Because there is a large third part market that has lots of ActiveX controls. Would you rather have the VFP team do things that third party products can do or do things to VFP itself that third parties can't do. It's the old limitation of resourced.>I have used a few - some were pretty buggy - espeicially the dbi. I like "rolling my own" with MS OCX. Only sissies use third party OCX:-)
Then by all means, "roll your own".
>
>
There's LOTS you can do in pure VFP without going to ActiveX.>Like "ugly" - like "sucks" - like "inconvienent" - like "why am I clicking 14 buttons to do something our QuickBasic DOS legacy system only took a carriage return to accomplish"
That's a design issue and has nothing to do with ActiveX.
>
>
I have no MS diplomas. In fact, I don't even know what an MS diploma is. Like any company, MS has to balance resources with need.>Well you should have one - your a "bad ass" developer - cannot figure why you seem so dependent on MS PR and policy.
You're the one that doesn't like MS PR and policy. I look at it and adapt instead of relying on and complaining about what they are not doing.
>
>
Face it, VFP is at the end of it's road.>So now we can write Sedna Programs that look like dBase II solutions!
Again...a design issue that has nothing to do with ActiveX. I've seen VFP applications that look just like Outlook that are done in nothing but pure VFP code. I've seen crappy VFP apps with and without ActiveX. If the developer has no eye for design, additional or updated ActiveX controls are not going to change that.
>
>Did Peterson Tell us that about VFP 6 around seven years ago - MS might get out of the xBase business - I guess we all start using JavaScript and DHTML then.
I said the same thing...that when VFP was no longer financially viable, it would be discontinued.
>
>
I've seen nothing to change my mind about it.
>ibid - the Chomsky statistic above:-)
And that's supposed to change my opinion how?
>
>My problem wasn't the VCX - it was because one out of every twenty XP desktops I installed on did not have MSXML installed - I thought that weird for something that is a "core" feature".
>
>Is there a "base" MSXML I can use (DOMDocument and XMLHTTP) that would preclude me from including the ISE MSXML merge module in my deployed applications? Is there a primivitave MSXML on XP and NT2000 that I could substitute without the merge modules?
I have no idea. Perhaps you should do some research on this.
Craig Berntson
MCSD, Microsoft .Net MVP, Grape City Community Influencer
