> This is beginning to look like a concerted effort on the part of the press > to trash > FoxPro by just throwing out a few disparaging words about it whenever they > even > have to mention it. How refreshing would an article be with features > covered > instead of impressions of a database development tool that it seems the > author of > the article has never developed in? Do I care about any author's opinion > if s/he > doesn't back it up with some facts and details? > > This is another lousy article that only hurts Visual FoxPro once again. I'm watching it for years here in Yugoslavia. Here most of the people who write articles never bothered to take a good look at FP, not to mention VFP; most of them are C++ or Clipper people. Clipper did have large popularity here, because "fox doesn't make exe" and lots of take-money-and-run half-time programmers loved Clipper for they thought their precious work was better protected from piracy and user's handwork in the tables that way. As a result, Fox remained a good tool for those who know it. I know lots of ex-Clipper programmers who switched to Fox, but, alas, they don't write for the magazines. Actual surface occupied now is still some 10 to 1 (Clipper/CAVO vs FP/VFP). Besides, do you think Access would go better if *we* wrote most of the articles about it?