Ed,

Yours is an enterprise-centric opinion. I haven't see VB or PB or DELPHI or VFP with SQL Server being sold by the BOX. A lot of companies are being hurt instead of being helped by some software vendors because of insisting on using softwares which are not budget friendly. MS is pointing on SQL Server because they want the product to be pushed. I am more on native VFP Table to be improved especially on the security side. Call it XBase-centric or monolithic applications but I would be more than happy if my clients are happy enough.

>>Walter, to summarize this: your opinion has absolutely no value - VFP is not a natural extension of the xBASE environment. It's been trying to move out of it for a while. My opinion doesn't count, because if I don't get what I need out of VFP, I'll use something that suits my needs. Perpeuating xBASE behaviors, IMO really stupid ones that you can implement now, is going to hurt the language more than it'd ever help. I want a strong OO, interpretive language with strong on the fly compilation, macro expansion and evaluation. I'd love to see the xBASE crap go by the wayside. I clearly don't want or see any value to your request, and it isn't worth debating. From my POV, you're clueless here - VFP is not meant to be a perpetuation of bad xBASE into the next generation of poorly conceived monolithic applications. It's a strong player at mid-tier, and that what I want MS to emphasize. So take your SET RELATIONS, SET SKIPS, ISAMish coding and don't ask if I think it's the right
>>thing to do with VFP, because AFAIC, it's not. It's stagnation and brain damage at best.
>
>I'm sad you think this way. To me it's clearly that you don't understand what i'm trying to do. It has less to with xBase that you might think. I has more to do to implement a feature that gives us more power which the relational model describes. You're thinking the SQL way. I truly believe this is all the wrong way, because SQL is a poor implementation of the relational model.
>
>I think that in the future there will be a product that is more base on the relational mode and is to some extend compatible with SQL.
>
>As for the other techniques: ADO, OLE DB, XML etc. They're relatively new and have to prove their value yet. I've seen too much stuff going by that didn't make it in DB-world. One thing is for sure the xBase language is not a hype, for all the others I'll have to sit and wait and see.
>
>It seems that we have very different points of view here. May because you don't understand the relational model.
>
>Walter,