>> 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!)?

diligent or hard-working...