>I'm sorry, Walter.

>I really can't have a conversation with someone who consider rubbish anything outside of his own view and who thinks that every other developer (even fellow VFP developers) doesn't have a clue about anything beyond what's granted.

The argument 'more control' on a lower level, is one of rubbish. We all know the development from 1GL to 4GL languages. 4GL languages have less control, but more 'specify what you want, rather than how' control. You can't possibly expect for a single developper to write something on its own that internally is so complex. It calls for misdesign, bugs, a lot of work and maintenance. Data handling should be provided WITH THE LANGUAGE, not via 3rd party add-ons, because it will divide the market in different (yeah again) narrowed applicability. We are already seeing too many different movements in this arena on the .NET platform. Hopefully LinQ will be a turning point in all of this.

Whether you are agreeing on my viewpoint or not, it is the hard reality. As for the argument of fellow developpers, yes, this is also reality. Many VFP developpers do not use local or remote views, and even if they do, they do not have enough knowledge of what the 'wheretype' property does and what it does mean to database design. OK, not everyone builds database systems from the ground up, so not everyone needs to know, but at least I'd expect the vocal ones up here to know and esspecially the ones who advocate certain techniques.

So yeah, I maybe regard any viewpoint outside of this reference as rubbish, just because no-one here seems to be able to give me the technical indications otherwise. There are no satisfying answers here on how to deal with certain update strategies. Everyone seems to be comfortable with their own way (SPs, row level optimisitic locking, etc) without even considering (or is it realisation?) looking beyond that. There seems to be no sense of choosing the strategy that has the closest fit.

SO PROVE ME I'M WRONG, with solid technical arguments, rather than the usual slams doors, and arguments that the .NET is not stupid.

>Indeed, from you point of view, I don't think why anybody can add anything of value, as you seem to be absolutely sure about knowing everything about "data" and obviously you are really convinced that 90% of the programming world -and I guess I'm too optimistic in my metric- is "lacking realism".

I have absolutely not the slightest doubt that I can still learn a lot from other systems, certainly OLTP, WAREHOUSING, XMLQUERY etc. There absolutely is a world beyond what we are discussing here. In the DB world there are other movements going on, that will have impact on data in the future. What I'm talking about here, really is the basics, basics that should at least be known to developpers that claim to know how to build a database application.

Because of the big shame of seperation of data and logic in languages like java, VB6, .NET, this has been ongoing for decades. From a developper pov, data belongs to the SQL server and forced people to think in layers. Data however crosses all layers by definition. It really is a shame this was/is not addressed in those programming platforms. Only now in 2007 MS realises this and introduces more 4GL intelligence (LinQ) into the core of the programming language. There was a link posted from the C#.NET team up here basically saying the very same thing.

>Forgive me if I stop this debate here, but I really can't talk with you.

That is your choice, I should respect. However it again is sad that no-one challenges the technical analysis of this all.