Ah, I should have asked 6 years ago, Hank!
All those scribbled variable names!




>>Hi Bill,

I'm reading your post and thinking "what is he talking about, missing intellisense" -- and then I realized that 6 years ago or more we put in place a startup (for VFP dev) that looks at our libraries and puts/updates all the library prg's into intellisense. Everything I do in VFP has intellisense. Well, for vcx's I have to do the AS thing, but that's the same in C# and Python, just different lingo.

I do have to say that both in C# (especially with ReSharper) and in Python (with any of the major IDE's, but especially PyCharm -- from the company that makes ReSharper, Aptana Studio -- the creators of PyDev, and WingIDE), the intellisense is really good. But not better than VFP's.

What the VFP IDE has not had is the refactoring ability of the more modern IDE's. It could have been done, of course, but being able to rename a method and have it propagate to all the calls to it in an entire project is very, very cool. And of course, VS and Python IDE's all have that.

Hank

>>>I'll be damned if I can ever see being as productive in .NET for simple desktop apps as I am with the Fox. Being a small shop, .Net solves problems I don't have
>
>We're a small shop too and our clients tend to be small, but more and more they need big-shop tools and we can find more of them in the .NET world.
>
>6 months ago, I'd have agreed with you about VFP productivity but now that we've developed some .NET toolkits roughly equivalent to the ones we had for VFP and improved our skills I think we're more productive in .NET, if only because of intellisense.
>We definitely write more lines of code with .NET, but we write them more quickly and accurately.
>When I go back to VFP I really miss intellisens