> a file with a bunch of redefines, IBM still uses a fixed length record. I > can tell you from the experience of having to optimize data loading > procedures written by other people that one of the most inefficient ways to > do it is low level file manipulation. Why are you reprogramming Fox? > > thanks, dorris. it's good to know i'm not the only 'lazy' programmer > here... A good friend of mine (died some years ago) had a very nice theory on this. I'll try to translate as properly as I can: "There are two kinds of lazy programmers. First kind is to lazy to invent any shortcut, so they rather type the same long sequences over and over again, just to avoid writing something to automatize the process. The second kind is too lazy to do anything more than three times, so once it comes to the fourth time, they drop all the other work, and do an automatization for that, no matter if it takes them three days and gets practically used only once" BTW, I know both programming and English for many years... and really can't remember what was the word opposite from "lazy" (no Latin, please!)?