From your links:

Shortly after I started using Python regularly as part of the prototyping process for developing new features for RSS Bandit, I started trying out C# 3.0. I quickly learned that a lot of the features I'd considered as language bloat a couple of months ago actually made a lot of sense if you're familiar with the advantages of dynamic and functional programming approaches to the tasks of software development. In addition, C# 3.0 actually fixed one of the problems I'd encountered in my previous experience with a dynamic programming language while in college.

FINAL THOUGHTS

C# has added features that make it close to being on par with the expressiveness of functional and dynamic programming languages. The only thing missing is dynamic typing (not duck typing), which I’ve come to realize is has a lot more going for it than lots of folks in the strongly and statically typed world would care to admit. At first, I had expected that after getting up to speed with C# 3.0, I’d lose interest in Python but that is clearly not the case.

I love the REPL, I love the flexibility that comes from having natural support tuples in the language and I love the more compact syntax. I guess I’ll be doing a lot more coding in Python in 2008.


I don't see that as an overwhelming rave for Python over C#. I see it as a preference. I agree with the ease of programming in VFP. I also agree with his statement: Since it is a general truism in the software industry that the number of bugs per thousand lines of code is constant irrespective of programming language, the more you can get done in fewer lines of code, the less defects you will have in your software.

I still think that overall dotnet has more capabilities for development than VFP does, and that is just with my limited use so far. However, I still don't see dotnet coming close to VFP with data crunging or ease and speed of development.

The strengths of VFP were not universally recognized or needed to keep it alive. Let's be frank, if the development world really wanted it then the customer base would have been sufficient for MSFT to have invested more into it.




Did I miss something?