Then they can have a contest on who can create the biggest app using all of the languages and data engines. I don't think I would want to debug that app.

>David,
>
>Righto.. The idea of a VFP data backend and VB front end - or visa versa is exactly my point.
>
>In other words, extending the 3-tier model completely to the development tools.
>
>Best,
>
>DD
>
>>You have that now with Visual Studio (and Office if you want Access). I was talking about what Craig said about having a single interface to all the tools and you pick the language. I would guess that based on the language you would get the cooresponding engine. Or there could be a choice on the data engine and VBs could write all the code they want and run their app with FoxPro's data engine. 8-)
>>
>>>David,
>>>
>>>For me, it would be ideal to have multiple data "engines" and multiple interfaces to those engines. If I needed a VB type engine, great, or a VFP engine, great or (shudder *g*) an Access ..er.. engine, ..uhhh. ok *g*, or a SQL (via MSDE?) engine, great.
>>>
>>>Could care less.
>>>
>>>Either way I get what I want/need. VFP's power when I need it. That's all.
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>DD
>>>
>>>>My understanding of the future of Visual Studio is that it will be one product and you choose the language to do what you need. Of course, this was *many* years ago just after MSFT bought Fox software.
>>>>
>>>>>Rick,
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you may be on to something here...
>>>>>
>>>>>Look, in life there are certain "laws" we all follow. Gravity, aging, not attempting to ride a 20 foot curl without proper preparation *g*, and so forth. These all bring with them certain inevitabilities with respect to consequences. Since I have no desire to eat sand I don't attempt to ride those curls; I just admire those who do. *bg*
>>>>>
>>>>>Additionally, if the VB team is acting like a petulent child vis a vis this wording nonsense it seems to me that this will be what causes them to eventually be faced with life's little realities and they will get a well deserved dose of humility.
>>>>>
>>>>>They can only go so far with this kind of behavior before it catches up to them. FOr me, I'm perfectly willing to let VFP lead the way. It's just so dang robust there's really no contest in many areas and my suspicion is that the VB crew will either learn this or not and if they do not young Bill Gates will step in at some point to make sure they do. After all VB is his baby and the mission certainly isn't to allow it to go by the wayside.
>>>>>
>>>>>Either way we eventually get TWO great products.
>>>>>
>>>>>Best,
>>>>>
>>>>>DD
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>MyBase. refers back to the immediate parent class. It's sort of like doing DoDefault() (I guess one could argue this is not a smart name either).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think super and inherited are class definition keywords that describe how subclassing a particular method occurs. This is different...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's kind of like everybody has THIS for the current object pointer and VB uses Me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's like an arrogant child trying to talk programming... Maybe they'll call ParentClasses Dads and so on just to be hip...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>+++ Rick ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>First, I have to say that I know nothing more (on this subject) than you quoted here. This "MyBase" is similar
>>>>>>>to "super" in Java. Pascal also has such a keyword (if I remember well, "inherited"). C++ doesn't have a keyword,
>>>>>>>but the functionality can be achieved using a typedef at class scope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have to say that this functionality is very useful especially when changing class hierarchies. It also different
>>>>>>>from the scope operator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anyway, the choice for "MyBase" is laughable and poor at best. It looks like taken from an example in a book... :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Vlad
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You gotta just laugh at stuff like this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>----------
>>>>>>>>Overriding: When using inheritance, our new class gets all the methods from the parent class. However, we may want a different implementation for one of those methods. This is done by overriding the original (inherited) method with our own code. Typically our new code can also call back into the parent object's original implementation—based on the VB 7 demo shown at VBITS this would be done using the MyBase keyword (e.g. MyBase.methodname).
>>>>>>>>----------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What the heck is this MyBase. crap???????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>VB people just pride themselves on doing things different from everybody else. I guess they've never heard of a scope resolution operator which is standard in just about every OO language. This won't even allow calling into the class hierarchy...