>>ohh sorry, but, Uhhh, which comments and quotes are you referring to ???
>
>Well if you would bother to go back and read what I wrote perhaps you would understand. For your convenience, here they are specifically:
>Yep, this is one possiblity, the other is gaining as much info on VFPs future as you can get an guess there will be a VFP 8.
>As we both know there are so much technologies and new products we already must/should learn you could easely make a full job out of learning. I think most of us are really selective about what is worth learning.
>I agree, but if you're a hardcore VFP developer looking for more absolute power, C/C++ might be the tool you're looking for.

uhhhmmm, yes, what about these comments I made ? Where i'm lacking common sense ?

>>This is really a wrong impression. I do use other components my favourates are:
>>- Crystal Reports, the best report writer I know.
>
>that's not a development tool, but rather an add-on or plug-in.
>>- C/C++

>now that substantiates your points a bit more. But if you are are looking to C/C++ stuff, why do you beat the drum so heavily that all you need is VFP? (LOL - now sing that to the Beetles tune of all you need is love)

Well I don't recall ever saying that. I like to have a VFP only solution, but since this is an utopia, we are forced to look out of the VFP box when we encounter problems that cannot be solved within the VFP box. But IMO it does not make it unusefull to submit VFP wishes for enhancements (like I did quite a lot) so for example I don't need the focus.fll library for retrieving printer information.

When looking outside the VFP box, I first look if there are components that can solve the problems (DLLs, ActiveX, COM or Automation). Only if none of these cannot solve the problem, I'm willing to look at another language as a last resort.

FYI, I only use C/C++ as add on to write small routines for performance or API purposes.

>>- SQL Server, (though currently only for playing)

>Funny you should mention that one. I seem to recall you preaching about SQL Server not being all it was made out to be, yet you had never seen nor touched the latest version. Again, this isnt truly a software development tool but rather a backend database platform.

I was not preaching about SQL server specificly, but about SQL servers (so also ORACLE, INGRES, etc) in general. The problem lies not in the server implementation, but in the SQL language itself. Since there is a SQL 2 standard and don't expect SQL - 3 soon, I did make my remarks about the SQL standard and it's implementation in RDBMS I know off (and i'm reading quite a few articles regarding this subject). The point is that there are significant differences in the SQL and xBase DML implementation. They both have very different characteristics. When benchmarking both in comparable environments, you'll see that in some cases xBase implementations are more efficient than SQL and visa versa. My point in this discussion was that they're not mutual exclusive and that moving an application to a SQL-only solution might not be a good idea.

>>So my application are quite up to date.

>In your opinion.

Of course, which is fead by the reactions of my clients.

>But based on some of the whacked relational theory you have spouted in the past, and with ample consideration for some of the other technical opinions I've seen you express over the past few months, my own personal opinion here is that I find this last comment above hard to believe.

I'm glad you read those one, but sad you did interpretate them as such, But please let this be constructive and don't degenerate opnions; it's not productive. I you have anything to say about my theories, please reply, I'm willing to explain my theories at a deeper level. At the end, we can agree or conclude to agree in disagreeing.

As for my applications you'll find that they're not that different than the usual stuff, Here and there I've made other (alternative) decissions. I've read a lot about UI design (of which among others, Cooper, the hall of fame/shame) and other products implementations (Did learn a lot from Navision Financials). Regarding this subject I'm alway's open to new ideas and if proved to be worth an attempt, implemented in my personal framework. If you really are interested and don't mind the Dutch language, I'll mail you a sample application and can see for yourself where I stand and able to critisize my view of software development on based facts.

>But to give you credit where credit is due, you do seem to have reached beyond the VFP box as far as current add-ons and plug-ins are concerned. That is quite commendable.

Thanks..

>>>Perhaps it's just the different job markets we are in.
>>
>>I'm quite sure this plays an important role.
>
>yes, agreed. Thus my effort to try and step out of this discussion with you earlier. I get this distinct impression your job market is nowhere near as demanding as it is here in the states, nor does it seem to be as effected by market trends as we are here, nor as competitive.

I don't know, i've never been in the states before, but when I take the most frequent asked questions up here I don't get the impression it is. I think the biggest difference is that i'm developing standard software which defenitely have other requirements than single instance custom made projects. We've failed to distinguish these situations and therefore were not really talking about the same problem area.

>Lucky you, but perhaps you should take this difference in job markets into consideration when you ask questions (like the one that started this discussion) before you readily dismiss the valid answers you receive just because the response is not as applicable in your market.

The term 'valid answer' is really relative. IMO in these discussions there are no general 'valid answers' they become valid according to the situation of the reader. BTW are you saying that the current discussion with JVP in this same tread is not constructive ? Even if the general feeling is that i'm flat wrong, the reader has been taking my opinions into consideration and will have a more detailed bases in his opinion regarding this subject; therefore I don't think my opinions are useless.

See my latest reply to JVP for my motives for my opinions. From your reaction (and JVPs in the current thread, and others) I can only conclude that my writings are a relative poor translation of my thoughts. I'll do my best to improve that in my future posts.

Walter,