>You can apply a lot of the principles in Fox 2.x as well, but that really >doesn't make the product itself OOP now does it? We had "non-visual >inheritance" in FoxExpress 2.6. But I agree, OOP is as much a methodology as a >feature. By the same token, just because a product has OOP doesn't mean you're >using it.

Very true...


>From what I've seen, the OOP techniques in VB don't really amount to much >other than good procedural programming coupled with the ability to pass >objects around and encapsulation thrown in.

And hence VB is object based, not object oriented. This nothing to the fact that you can implement an OO design in VB - or Fox 2.x for that matter.


>
>I think there are a number of ways to get around the lack of inheritance and >in general, VFP developers tend to be overly dependent on it, but the lack of >it is still a serious issue IMO. Despite what you can do with delegation, >decorators, etc. Visual inheritance is still important to me and I don't like >the idea of using techniques that make my visual components look dramatically >different at design time vs. runtime in most cases.

Inheritance is important, but it can be overused. IMO, VB should be a fertile ground for the subject of design patterns. Yet, it is a subject that is scoffed at to some extent as something that is new or hyped too much. The fact that the VB community does not have inheritance, one would think that the VB community would be way ahead of VFP with regard to patterns. YAG proposed a TechEd topic on design patterns aimed at VB. The proposal was rejected due to the belief that there would be a lack of interest.