Hi Marc,

Thanks for the quote.
That is precisely why I have argued *AGAINST* MS' present tack AT LEAST FOR VFP - it truly is a wonderful dream, but the reality will prove to be unattainable (just as the quote notes for all the others)!

Sure, it can be one heck of a trip participating in TRYING to make it work, but is that what most of us are actually here to do?

I am quite happy to have MS continue to try to realize this "wet dream", but I really wish that they would leave VFP out of it and let it grow along the lines that its knowledgeable and dedicated users want and need VFP to grow.

As noted some time ago, I can't even get two versions of Office 97 (one the full "pro Edition" and one the "Small Bus Edition", work the same on 2 different computers each with Win95 (again 2 diff ones - a retail ver. purchased about 1.5 years after intro and a vendor instslled OSR2 ver.) on THE SAME DOCUMENT!!

Cheers,

Jim N

>Mark,
>
>You mind if I quote chapter one of a marvellous book "AntiPatterns" by Brown, Malveau, c Cormick and Mowbray, John Wiley & Sons, 1998, isbn 0-471-19713-0?
>
>Quote
>
>AntiPatterns: AntiHype
>
>Software was supposed to make digital hardware much more flexible. Instead, software technology has promulgated a series of failed promises. The promise that sofware would make hardware flexible was only the first. What went wrong? Within our careers, we have seen any number of software fads come and go that were succesful in a limited way for specific aspects of software development, but did not deliver the promised "silver bullet". Remember some of thesee major trends?
>
>* stuctured progamming was supposed to improve productivity and remove most software defects
>* artificial intelligence was supposed to make computers much more capable.
>* networking technologies were supposed to make all systems and software interoperable
>* Open systems and standards were supposed to make application software portabale and interoperable
>* Parallel processing was supposed to make computers much more powerful and scalable
>* Object Orientation was supposed to solve the problems of software productivity and adaptability and make software highly reusable.
>* Fameworks were supposed to make sofware highly reusable and software development much more productive.
>
>The claims sound like a broken record; every new software fad makes similar promises. History has not been written on many of today's software buzzwords, but their claims sound very similar to what we have heard before. Current examples include:
>
>The internet, Component software, distribute objects, business objects, software reuse, scripting languages, software agents ...
>
><snip>
>
>Eighty four percent of software projects are unsucessful, and virutally all deliver stovepipe systems. Why?
>
><snip>
>
>The bottom line is, regardless of the excitement and hype, software technology is in the Stone Age. Application developers, managers and end users are paying the high price.
>
>end quote.
>
>Refreshing albeit somewhat painful reading don't you think. Am I answering your questions, guess not, but think of this this way: A good programmer know the rules, and also know _to what extent_ he can apply them.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>I know you were _partly_ joking, but...:)
>>
>>>1. The rules change, and you do not have the time to know what the lastest fad is.
>>
>>No good programmer follows rules because they are the fad. In this industry, however, the participants are smart enough that most of the fads are intelligent (take patterns, for example).
>>
>>>2. A lot of rules do not really have a reason to exist
>>
>>Name five.
>>
>>>3. You most probably will not finish your project within the delay if you follow the rules.
>>
>>This is the "OOP slows development" argument. I think I'd have to be a real moron to use technology that doesn't make me deliver better product faster.