Let's play nice, boys.


>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