>>For those who have VFP 6.0 beta copy, please comment on the following to clarify things:
>>
>>LAN Times review on VFP 6.0
>>1. "VFP 6.0 is sluggish still; RDBMS connection could be simpler."
>>
>>I am an Asian folk, but what I understand with "SLUGGISH" is SLOW.
>>
>>2. "The nature of the programming language is still procedural, but the new version has improved object capabilities and includes a library of objects, such as navigation buttons and other Windows controls, that you can drag and drop in your application."
>>
>>I just want to emphasize with the term "PROCEDURAL". As far as I know, VFP supports procedural still but not promoting procedural programming because the nature of the language is already full object-oriented programming.
>>
>>3. "New applications-development projects should take advantage of contemporary programming tools, so we won't try to persuade you to adopt the dated Visual FoxPro as your main programming language. But if you have existing FoxPro investments or fluent FoxPro developers on staff, mark your calendar for the release later this summer and begin pushing those old programs toward the new century."
>>
>>This claim is ridiculous, it scares new comers because it does not promote VFP as a good choice for new projects but only to existing FOXPRO investments and only current FOXPRO community.
>>
>>Please comment, and if I have a wrong perception, I stand to be corrected...
>
>My .02 about reviews.
>
>I have written many authors of articles that appear in Lan Times, and many other mangazines. It seems that there are many people writting articles that are not qualified to do so. I would recommend testers of Version 6 write to the editor of the magazine and refute the article on a professional level, (ie. VFP has been object oriented since 3.0). I refuted some articles, and they asked me if I would like to write some, but I turned down for lack of time. It seems they will let anyone submit their views and write an article w/o questions.

I already did e-mail to the author stating my disagrement on some portion of the review because it's disastrous on the product in the sense. Good thing it is not included and should not be included in any way in the NEWSROOM portion of VFP's URL. I do not have any idea how articles are being posted, but it is unfair if the author did not submit a copy to MS specifically to VFP department for further study.