I think I may have subclassed an activex object by code once in VFP. But when I can do it in 5 seconds visually ...

And those things you learned: it's the having to use that knowledge while I (or my domain-expert clients, who are the ones I am concerned about -- with ReSharper I can find my way around C# OK) am attempting to accomplish tasks that don't need that level of specification that is the problem: it's like having constant noise in the background. When I need a bread knife, I don't want to use a scalpel. OTOH, it's great having .Net for those times when all that specificity is needed: it's just that 99% of the time it isn't. And even when that level of specificity is needed, it's typically better to encapsulate it for easier use: hence the rise of F# in parallel computing. What F# offers can be done in .Net, with a lot of typing. It makes more sense to use F# for those scenarios where it fits what is being done better than C#. What I'm saying here about python and vfp is that it makes more sense to use them for the great majority of scenarios involved in everyday business programming. And if VFP.Net were to be available, it would be ideal: it allows accessing all the .Net constructs, allows returning .Net types (things which IronPython/Ruby/JS struggle at, if they can do them at all), but also allows everyday programming without having to deal with a level of specificity that is irrelevant to the tasks at hand.

I'm not putting down the knowledge you got from hand-coding subclasses. It's all useful stuff for certain tasks. My perspective is simply that those certain tasks for which it is useful should fall outside the realm of everyday business programming, because they clearly aren't necessary for it (as anyone who has created line-of-business apps in VFP can attest). In fact, that level of knowledge isn't needed to write frameworks with which to write business apps. Well, it would be needed if one where writing the framework in .Net, but that's the point.

Hank

> let's you subclass so easily (think: visual subclassing
>
>Not trying to be argumentative, but when I think of the things in .NET I learned "along the way" when I had to subclass with code, I just have never seen this issue as significant.
>
>The local cursor in Fox was certainly a very nice thing - but the enhancements to ADO.NET (and LINQ to Objects/DataSets).over the years certainly meant that .NET could hold its own in this area.