>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....

I know this because people that know it told me. There is no possible way I can have personal knowledge. First, I'd have to actually see the code. MS is not going to show me that. Second, I'd have to learn VC++ to understand it.

>
>
>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.

This is different. It is actually something you can test and verify. If I could personally verify my claim, I would. You can not personally verify your claim either.

>
>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...

Do you require that everyone that tells you something to have the facts to back it up? Based on my experience with who told me this, I believe it.

>
>
>
>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.

Actually, it is germain. You told me I was wrong and you talk to the Fox team too. Ultimately, I was correct. John, if you don't believe what I said you can talk to the Fox team as I did.

>
>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.....

I can comment because the people that do know the internal workings have commented. I simply repeated the facts they told me. What you are saying is that before someone tells you something they personally need to know that is how something works. If that is the case, you'd better not visit a doctor anymore. 90% of what doctors tell you how the human body works is theory. No facts. Theories. Don't give me any response that the doctor spends years studying how things in the body work or that based on his experience, symptom x means that the problem is y. There is still no fact to base that on.

There are many things in life that we have to take people's word for. This is one of them. I trust my sources.

>
>
>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".....

You've stated that inheritance is the most requested feature to be added to VB. How do you know this to be a fact? Have you seen a list that tallys this? We both know that OOP menus and reports are two of the most often requested features in VFP. If the development teams add features just because they are most requested, where are the OOP menus and reports? Can they be added? Of course they can. Will we see them? I have no idea.

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

No, because it has been proven that it isn't. But then, how do we really know that? Maybe man landing on the moon was all a hoax, done on a hollywood soundstage. As I said before, John, you just have to believe somethings because people with more knowledge about it told you something as fact.

>
>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...

At the time the response was given, the answer was sufficient for me. Next time I'll press for more specifics.