>What a sh*tload off rubbish.
>
>First off all he makes the big mistake that a modern language needs to be a strict type language. This is simply not true. VFP is certainly not alone in being a dynamic type of language.
>
>Second we all know that inheritance is there, polymorphism, encapsulation. I'm not sure what he means with delegation though.

Bindevents? Though I didn't quite get why it needed one more object than VFP. Sounded a bit convoluted when I read that in Kevin's book.

>This is just another comment of someone that really does not have a clue of what really needs to be a modern language. To me .NET is a step back in the evolutionary path where applications really live in a database rather than being just a compiled collection of text files

I've seen guys who could define what makes a good rock song - they could count criteria off the top of their heads. Sure sign they didn't get it.