>OK....
>
>I have to backup Perry who is my arch-nemesis in political posts (lol) but is dead right here.
>
In my experience, Java is used as an appendage to an app; mainly as a scripting language.

John, it is an honor to read you response - but I have to say "no-no-no"

First - what is dotNOT? Is it one thing? Is it not a pantry of components? dotNOT is a General term that applies to a genre of products. It is unusual to hear so called geek ask, "Have you used dotNOT?" If they [really] knew anything they would [try to] be a bit more specific.

Java more geeky than C++ (take it from one who struggled with DoD specifications for more than 2 years - it is OOPY OOP OOP - you may be limiting this to JavaScript (a client script language but even lowly me has built API's with JS)

With Java (not JavaScript) components can be constructed from the ground up. I think the confusion is because Java does not have the simplicity of a click and drop object GUI IDE as does VFP or dotNOT component builders. Java projects are almost entirely created with text editors. It's like building a big VFP program with just PRGs. You are building projects with source code. Because it is source code it can be confused with a scripting language - but it is not. And that is not comfortable for many of us. Many of us would be flipping burgers without the GUI IDE! Thus - viola - dotNOT pantry!

For example - this chart (right click when the applet loads) was built - in code - with Java: http://www.fxstreet.com/rates-charts/usdollar-index/

What MS languages offer that kind of flibility and power?

Many attempts have been made to make full-blown Java applications with no other language support - for the most part they have failed because Jav's JIT compilation scheme doesn't work well for all parts of a complete application.

It works well if the operating system is not Windows. Remember all that stuff M$ went through with Sun several years back. What do you thnk C# is - it's M$'s attempt to compete with Java. And it looks like it's going the way of the xBox - what can we expect from M$ next - refrigerators?

John - everything JPL and NASA does is Java (those mars rovers and orbiters talk through a Java interface!). Every military command and control systm is Java. Military research, like hypersonic research - is all modeled in Java. In fact, M$ attempted to usurp the Navy's Sun/Java CICS (Cammand and Control Systems) in a war ship yard M$ owns with Windows - and the Navy made them tear it out. Fact. What language is this?

public void setActivityID( String iActivityID )

If you said C#, C++ or JavaScript you'd be incorrect (though JavaScript implementations can look almost like it):

var theactivity=new Number(oNAV.GetDataModelElementValue("ccuractive"));

The difference is that JavaScript cannot "cast" data types or build applets that compile to classes that can be imported by a JSP.

Yes, VFP is a "thinner" client than dotNet because VFP is not trying to objectify the entire PC universe like dotNet is. It's a fallacious argument, though. If VFP was positioned the way dotNet is then it would be way, way fatter.

So what.

I am sure the cube heads with the name tags on their ties are busily maintaining their 4 pages of code for some enterprise system some place that appreciate the "PC universe" comparison. But that does not make a difference to anyone - but them (and their employers accounts payable). It's not the size - it's how you use it - an appeal to those with inadequacy issues:-)

The universe is much bigger than just the "solar" system of Windows based PCs.

The marketing of NOT through IT departments, rather than appeal or quality, is the main reason NOT has any traction. Most of the NOT toung chanters who claim themselves ex VFP guys, are happily in the NOT solar system - and perhaps this is a good thing for VFP.

Lets see if their NOT projects turn out to be as successful as their attempted VFP projects.

Brand affilation is not a substitute for industry, dedication
has proven successful. As it stands now - especially in Europe - and the scientific and engineering.

BTW, what you called a "Piazo scheme" ... I think you meant Ponzi.
Thanks for the correction - the complaint about Micro$oft is that instead of innovation and an appreciation for "the" customer - it [M$] buys (eats) everything up (except "Google"). Instead of upgrading or repairing OS - MicroSoft introduces new (yet still buggy OS's and development tools) and pulls support for older (sometimes just a year or 2 older) products.

Micro$oft profits through the incremental increases in "life cycle costs" they pass through to [so called] customers through a practice of allowing lingering bugs and incompatibility issues to create a demand - and the IT departments they pitch this philosphy through to force the people that sign the checks to buy thier next great "replacement". That's about as Ponzi as a monster can get. It is a scam.

I understand your desire to tow the party line. But your argument seems more of a defense of Micro$oft than a technical rational.