Its one of the few things that VFP does that is difficult to impolement in .net. So its the defining point for sticking with VFP in John's mind.




>AGAIN with the automatic spanning of datasets? Good grief, Charlie Brown. Is this truly a "high profile" issue or just your personal Moby Dick? It seems like something an assembly language or C programmer would be concerned about. Not that there's anything wrong with that....
>
>
>>There's nothing you can do in VFP that you can't do in .net somehow. It may not be a single command, it may require some coding, but in the end the result is the same.
>>
>>There's nothing you can do with a truck that you can't do with a bicycle somehow. It may not be a single trip, it may require some extra work, but in the end the result is the same.
>>
>>;-)
>>
>>Seriously, if you're doing straight data entry/fixed reporting apps, NET works well. But once you start data processing, NET is more limited. Automatic spanning of datasets between memory and disk is one high profile example. Senior MS people have said this is a priority for Linq. Fantastic! It's already begun- the absolute preference for stored procedures is being softened by recognition of SPT and local datasets. The day the dataset matches the VFP cursor in this area I'll agree with you, though I won't boast that I've been saying it for years. ;-)
>>
>>Overall: IME there's nothing VFP'ers would like better than to know there is a replacement MS tool that matches or exceeds what they're used to. It doesn't mean they'll all troop across obediently, it means there's a recognisable option if they want to stay in the MS stable, as I'd like to.
>>
>>Jay, good luck with your NET! It's not so difficult, is it?