Kevin,

Since you took several occasions to slap me in the face with the 'absurd claim' that desing patterns are 'better' implemented in dynamic languages. I wan't to set this straight for once and for all. Please also direct this the to 'well known member who backed you up in this claim' so we can start a real technical discussion rather the ad-hominum attacks.

The links I gave you were:

http://norvig.com/design-patterns/ppframe.htm
http://memeagora.blogspot.com/2007/09/ruby-matters-design-patterns-in-dynamic.html
http://www.groovygrails.com/gg/conference/speaker?speakerId=21&showId=131

And a very interesting one from a MS employee
http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2008/01/02/DoesC30BeatDynamicLanguagesAtTheirOwnGame.aspx

The information above is about a discussion of dynamic typed languages versus static typed languages (so e.g. VFP vs VB.NET). It even does not take into account yet that VFP is very strongly equipped with the tools to design them e.g.:

- Macros
- EXECSCRIPT()
- Storing meta data and even code in tables stored within the executable

Your turn.