Agreeing wth you and the others, altough I only once went down to assembly level ;-)

You might try out Python - even if it seems to loose favour in usage terms overall lately. The expressiveness, the possibilities to try out other approaches in an interpreter are IMO a bit better than vfp, as more "modern" concepts have been included whle keeping backwards compatibility mostly. The only thing missing are SQL/xBase and disk based/memory swapping cursors, although it has SQLite as embedded local DB and a "memory cursor" definition that abstracts external datasources via an API similar to RV's - but those "cursors" then cannot be queried via SQL, more like ADO.Net. In that area lacking from vfp or SQL affionado POV, but in the other areas making you a better programmer.

C# really has grown into a nice language - ahead of Java in many areas, but still too much boilerplate code for my taste, although their two pronged attack with var and the static type called dynamic are nice.



>I agree with Craig.
>
>I started programming with op codes and addresses.
>It took almost an hour to compile assembler on the IBM 705, so we skipped that step and wrote op codes and addresses ourselves.
>When you only have 10K of memory, it's not a big deal to keep track of memory addresses. In fact, it's essential that you do.
>If you want real flexibility at a level that operates very close to the CPU, memory, etc. you can't beat op codes.
>However I won't be doing op codes and addresses again (I hate hex!) any time soon.
>
>As computers became more powerful it became obvious that if computers were going to be of any use to anyone, they first had to be useful to programmers by taking as many mechanical tasks out of programming as possible.
>
>I gave up on C and C++. They are Neanderthals. I don't care what they can do.
>The first thing any modern language has to do is simplify things for the first user.. the programmer.
>
>VFP does that quite well.
>
>Another language that I think is underrated is SQL. It's simple, powerful and it does what is designed for very well.
>
>C# is a good language, but it could be better. There are still too many petty annoyances in it.
>
>