>OTOh, the opensourcedness [it's a word, starting now] is exactly the reason I love it. It doesn't get any features introduced by any marketing division as the next great selling point, there's no gold plating, it's written for programmers by programmers. As Steven Black would say, „fat free, low impedance“. Short, simple, fast.
>
>And, verbosity-wise, my guesstimate is that while Fox could do in 10 lines what C# would in 25, it seems that Python needs about six lines or less. It's even more terse.

Yupp, but there are 2 things if Fox which result loss of terseness:
Overloading constructors is easier in Python, Javascrpt, esp. if using named parameters.
In Vfp we Createobject() and oftenstart setting at least half dozen of lines,
which all gets handled elsewhere with parameters on constructor.

Of course there is a way to achieve similar pattern in vfp adding parameters to subsequent
inheritance levels and calling dodefault, but this introduces brittleness via to tight
coupling on method level.

Correlated with that is Vfp usage of Wizards and Builders, which also create "flattened" code
setting each property in own line, minimizing runtime duration (no intermediate method calls)
as long as no JIT of caching is involved.

Also Using singular lines to initialize variables with common settings like strings to "" or nums to 0
with "Store" is sometimes frowned upon - for me it is a no brainer saving runtime and easing
dev mental load as every "special" variable is easier to find/maintain while having
a single mental group for all other variables...

>I specially love the methods of basic classes (string, date etc) for which Fox uses functions with often hard-to-memorize names.

OOP in vfp was a retrofit onto a early 80ies language template, in the 90ies OOP ideas were common.

regards
thomas