Walter,

>>Walter,
>
>>It's really the same way with FoxPro and SQL (or any other tool really). SQL IS the absolute best tool for the job in many cases.
>
>In many cases, it is, but still stands that I experience some cases where a xBase approach is better.

Ok, use them then. Please give me a real life example that you have worked on, ok? I'll bet that I could, with a minimum of fuss make it far more scaleble and manageable by taking my approach. With the emphasis on manageability.

Perhaps in your area of the world people do things on a much smaller scale than elsewhere. Or you've just decided to play in the puddle rather than swim in the ocean. That you CHOOSE to develop small applications is not a "proof" that that is the best approach - or the worst, or bad, good, so-so or anything else.

When it comes to managing 1,000,000+ records, which is if I recall the general presumption here, I can more often than not get better results for my customer by using a SQL backend than using SET FILTER. Goodnees, those two ideas aren't even in the same league.

Look, there are some VERY bright people who are attempting to help you here. That you do not understand this is, at the end of the day, your busines. I've been making a good living with Fox since 1987. That's 12 years of hand's on, real life experiences and I do know what I'm talking about just as Ed and Jim do but I hate to have to appeal to something like that for some sort of 'authority'.

At least I know I can trounce you if I ever compete for business against you. *g*

>
>>Ed's numbers are not at all far off from what I've experienced as wel. In 1990 I worked with over 1+millions of names at UC Davis Extension in California. It was a list of people we'd send mailings out to who had provided us their names over a span of about 4-5 years. I sure wish that I had the tools then that I have now! *g*
>
>>Just prior to that I had worked in retail maintaining a list of names of customers. In ONE YEAR we accumulated over 60,000 customer names that we could mail to!
>
>>Large numbers of names and information to manage is extremely common from what I have seen.
>
>Might be, but small databases also are. I've got lot's of clients which manage relatively small databases where a xBase approach sometimes is the best.

Fine. I have absolutely no trouble that you prefer to fight for the bottom rung of the ladder Walter.

However, I'd echo Ed Rauh and Jim Booth and state that you are limiting yourself in your own mind. Like them I just hate to see it happen. It's unnecessary.

>
>>PS - Happy New Year!
>
>Walter,


Best,

DD