>First, Ed, let me say that there is a difference between 'commands' (and their results) and something like 'weak typing' (which is decidedly not a command). Really don't know why you feel you have to get snarky on the issue.
>

I'm clueless - what do you mean by "snarky"?

>Now, about the documentation...
>
>While I too do not expect any documentation to tell me WHEN to use a specific command or set of commands, I do expect any product's documentation to tell me the essentials of each and every command/function/P-E-M/etc.
>
>VFP has far too many deficiencies to fully enunciate here, but let me offer a coupla bigger ones:

Jim, can you name any language product, aside from possibly the public-domain TinyC, which provides this level of documentation, on a complete, error-free basis? Not the syntax, but the implications of selecting any and all aspects of a command. this is what you're expecting, and I'd love to see a fully-functional language implementation that provided that type and depth of documentation. I've worked with a wide range of languages, and I'm not aware of any that provide the level of detail that you're asking for, but I'd be open to seeing an example of a product that does have this level of documentation available:

>1) Just where are the "default" (as far as DODEFAULT or NODEFAULT) behaviours documented?? Just a small thing.
>2) Why does SET REFRESH continue to be basically the same as it was documented in FPD - that is, being applicablew to BROWSE only????
>3) Just yesterday AddItem/AddListItem came up again. Despite reading the documentation there was still no way to use it 'intelligently'.
>4) Just what is "scopes to the datasession"??? Can a noovice really be expected to understand the implications of that simple statement???
>5) Just how do LOCK/UNLOCK/RLOCK/FLOCK act/react in a buffered situation???
>6) Why does the absence of a ReadEvents come up so often???... as in 'my test runs OK but when I try a regular run the form just flashes up and then disappears?'
>

>Sure, those of us who have been with FP/VFP for quite a while have learned about these things. But think of the frustrations even you encountered when you first started. They may be long ago and forgotten now, but is it right that every newcomer should have to face the exact same set of frustrations???... Isd that 'progress'??? Is that any way to expand the VFP user base???
>

Let's compare to VC++ for the sake of this example, which, from the standpoint of providing adequate reference documentation, probably comes as close to a complete set of docs as is available from an MS product. Does the documentation for the language implementation proselytize for C/C++ development? My opinion is no; in fact, AFAIC, there is no single product that places a greater demand on the new developer than C/C++ to learn about the language and how to use it and deal with some intrinsicly non-intuitive concepts. OTOH, the population of C programmers has grown, not because the documentation is wonderful and helps the new user master difficult concepts, but because the language implementation provides such a strong set of development services.

I think I'd best leave it at that I believe that there are shortcomings to the VFP documentation, but I do not believe that the language product must provide an introduction to development and development philosophy with the language, nor do I believe that any product provides the level of documentation that you insist is uniquelt lacking in VFP.

There's no argument that VFP's documentation needs work. I'd argue that if we could eliminate many of the "backwards compatibility" issues, the documentation and functionality of the product could be more easily enhanced and brought into line with the current product's focus.

As to the documentation being meant to teach the language, I completely disagree that this is a need that the language docs for a development product must supply. This is an essential difference between a product like VFP, which is targeted at people developing applications, and products like Access or Approach, which provide a non-development-oriented, but somewhat technically inclined, end-user to enhance the product through simple programming.

>Maybe we do have differences in our expectations. And possibly the fact that you work at a publisher's makes the concept of having to buy supplemental material a little less troublesome to you.

That doesn't matter. I'd worked in the field for a long time before working in the publishing industry. I learned early and often that reference manuals didn't tech you to program. I started with itty bitty lab systems, and then went to large-scale commercial development, with a smattering of numerical analysis in between. None of the reference guides from back then were meant to teach you to program in the language...