>To protect others from his views? You're kidding right? Who died and made JR arbiter of the truth?
>
>JB...
>
>It's best to just ignore him. You're dealing with someone who still recently says that JVP didn't know what he was talking about, made self-evidently absurd comments like "VFP does design patterns better than .NET", and even went so far that some longtime VFP stalwarts just shook their heads and walked away.

Kevin,

You are the one who is making a fool out your self:

1. You do nothing to disprove the claim I made, though I gave you the reasons why it is "Easier" (you're twisting my words adn change it into 'better') to implement design patterns into VFP. Provisions like embedding meta data into the EXE (embedded tables), EXECSCRIPT() and dynamic typing makes it way easier to implement certain design paterns (I could write a factory design patern way easier than in .NET. Care for a contest ??).

2. Again, I'd like to point out that you brought up the point of JVP again. JVP made claims about .NET 1.0 that data handling was at least as good as in VFP... There was no disadvantage from a datahandling pov. JVP was a fool in not seeing the importance of a local database engine. History has proven him wrong as on many occasions, with MicroSoft itself admitting it.

3. Anytime as I do a thourough analysis of a certain item you cowardly escape the discussion. Every point I make is ignored. What happened to the two questions I asked you back in november 2006. I never received an answer from you: How do you set .NULL. values in a column in your stored procedures approach. And if you can't how could you possibly hold up that stored procedures generally are a good starting point?

Again, you have a tendency (but you're not the only one up here) not reading the message or reading something entirely different from the message. Further you have the tendency to chicken out of dicussions when confronted with gaping holes in your software development mindset (e.g. NULL values with stored procedures). You easily dismiss the features that VFP does provide as irrelevant (auto disk spanning --> more conservative memory management) without further analysis.

OK, if you've always developped the VB way in VFP, you won't have too much of a problem. You never took advantage of the data drivenness of VFP. However if you do, like JR and Myself to write well performing highly data driven and flexible applications, there is lots to cry about in .NET. It is not our fault you're not seeing this. We are merely pointing this out to the lurkers up here that your view is rather limited in this respect and that VFP still is superiour in many data handling respects to .NET.