Michael,

Since this was more a rant than anything (your words) I feel secure in replying...
SNIP
>
>How often does anyone use a stand-alone PRG file containing only procedures and functions? Isn't this concept replaced with adding those procedures to your form as a custom method?
>
I certainly agree. As I had said, it was only becuse I came across FPD2.6 that I tried it, first to see how bad it was and secondly to see if it applied more generally.

>If we're going to cite original specs versus newly created backwards compatibility, then lets talk about how much faster my DOS 286 booted from floppy than my PIII-500 with windows98. To make the "test" scientific, lets assume that i'm going to run a DOS application once the computer starts. It's a silly example of how the two really shouldn't be compared.
>
I don't get your point here. Again, I did some SIMPLE tests because (a) FPD was there and (b) the VB vs VFP performance thread was a surprise to *me*. I had always felt secure in the fact that FP/VFP (and especially since the string improvements touted for VFP6) would best VB at most anything (not just data access).

>My two cents is that you don't choose a language to use because it's a tenth of a second faster per 100k iterations of a single command. You either have it forced on you by the company you're working for, or you like the flexibility and features the language contains. A good programmer can write a killer app with a bad language, but a bad programmer can't write a killer app regardless of how good the language is. Optimization comes more from the design of the code than the inherent execution speed of each command.
>
I agree fully.
I was just looking to see if there might be an explanation for the observations.

Cheers,

Jim N


>BTW, this message is more soap box ranting than a specific reply to Cindy, thanks.