Wow you really swallowed the ActiveVFP cool-aid eh? I got a bridge to sell you too, Greg... :-)

+++ Rick ---

>Well tools like WWWC, FoxWeb, and AFP all use the old simulated multi-threading model used about 15 years ago
>that require that you fire up a VFP server(s) processes. Name one other web programming language that require this kludge.
>Whereas ActiveVFP uses COM multi-threading which should
>also be the fastest and most scalable (quoted from the CodePlex site)
>I also like the fact that it can be hosted at cheap sites like GoDaddy just like PHP wich i don't believe the others can.
>And it beats the pants off PHP on Windows, performance wise.
>
>I saw a demo here in Reston and I couln't believe how easy it was - just like PHP.
>Just code a .AVFP page using VFP code and HTML and run. And you can add jQuery and CSS too.
>
>I think I forgot to mention that ActiveVFp is free and open source too.. which i don't think thothers are
>
>Use C# if you need a site in the top 5% in web traffic . otherwise it's not worth it in my opinion. but performance is best in c#
>
>>I'm planning to begin developing web applications but my main and almost only programming language I know, and work with, is VFP 9. So I guess I should adopt one of the mentioned above. I would like to know which one of them is the easiest to learn, the stronger to support a lot of concurrent users. Or which one would you recommend?
>>
>>TIA