>
>That's easy to say when you're not paying for it. <g>
>
>Disabling a command isn't the same as removing it or never inserting it to begin with. Additionally, I stand by my assertion that to remove a few commands from VFP will essentially do nothing whatsoever to bloat or speed. You'd have to take a meat axe to it and there would IMO be no end of change or enhancement requests to MSFT. "Please allow us to take this out, put that it. No, not that way, this way. No, not this way, that way ad nauseum." That would drive support costs through the roof IMO and would be the quickest way to kill the product.

Doug, this is what the Fox team has been saying for a long time. You won't get much by trimming out the old stuff.

>
>Yes.. There was no other way to make it work in the real world because of the nature of compilers vs interpreters. You had to declare everything up front. It wasn't a bad idea, rally. It forced developers to be disciplined and that IMO is what killed it. Developers were more interested in having their own way than having a fast product. Force was/is a VERY FAST product.

I remember people asking Nantucket to create smaller EXEs. The Clipper team would always respond with "We have to leave everything in for macro expansion".