>I can only repeat what I was told. I don't know of specifics.

This is a very dangerous thing Craig... In making your posts, you should say this. Reading your posts, many folks may think you know the specifics, when you don't. Making the arguments you are attempting to make really requires knowledge of those specifics. It is times like this when I wish Jeff Winchell was around....

>
Fox and VB were and are architecturally different. Whatever is needed inside the guts of the thing apparently was easier in FP than it would be with VB. Why this is the case, I don't know. This is what I was told.
>

I once heard that SQL-Server was not has good as VFP data, and is not has fast. After I started to work with SQL a lot, I found out that what folks where saying, and are still saying, is wrong. I can say this because I know the details. I can demo it today.

Craig, it is best to enter into a debate with facts you know to be true/not true based on your own experience. The alternative will get you into hot water...


>Are these the same people that you referred to when you said the Fox team isn't bigger than a year ago?
>

Craig, that issues related to the inference that the Fox team is growing by leaps and bounds. Calvin may have a programming assistant. Randy may have somebody assisting him. And, I know somebody took Ken's place. Please, don't trot this out again.... It is not germain to the discussion at hand. The fact is, you are up here debating me with heresay that you really don't have first hand knowledge of whether they are true.


>Again, I'm not privy to the internal workings. I can only repeat what I've been told by people who are privy to this stuff.
>

Again, my point is made...


>>Look at how inheritance works in VC++ - with virtual functions and the like. I don't believe for one moment there is a technical reason why the same sort of thing could not be implemented in VB.
>
>I don't how things work in VC++, so I can't comment on this.

But you don't know about the internals of VFP or VB, yet you can comment on those.....

>Along the same lines, you don't have the direct knowledge to support your claims either.
>

My claim is that if MS did it with VFP, they can do it with VB. Is that really far-fetched. I am not claiming VB is getting OOP. It is up to you, those who choose to take me on, to refute why it could not be done. You, and a few other folks have trotted all sorts of ideas out here. You have not really read or understood the claim I am making. Also, by your own admition, you really don't have first hand knowledge of the facts that you alluded to having in earlier posts. It was not until I backed you in the corner that you finally had to "fess-up".....


>>I am anxious for you to elaborate on the specifics of the VB kernel - and why it would have to be town down. Or, is this what somebody told you. Or, was it something you heard. Or, do you know this to be fact. If you do, then posting some specfics here should be a trivial task.
>
>I don't have specifics. I discussed one day the idea of VB adding inhertiance and what affect that would have on VFP. I was told that for VB to get inheritance would require a rewrite of the kernal because something in the kernal prohibits this. We didn't get into specifics as to why.
<

So, if I told you the moon was made of green-cheese, you would believe it.

You see, if I had that conversation, I would not let that 'something' go by. I would press for the specifics. If the person could not cough them up, I woudl have to remain open on the whole manner since I would not have been convinced other wise...