Larry,

Right. I'd want to use VC, ASM, or perhaps VB for some of the lower level stuff as well.

But that is no proof of the demise of VFP. It's yet another proof that you need to use the proper tool for the job is all.

Best,

DD



>Hi Doug,
>While I would use VFP to replace VB when it comes to UI, VFP can not (and should not IMO) be used for system-level things. Its API support is too limited for the more advanced structures.
>
>>Larry,
>>
>>What other product, other than VFP, is able to do all three tiers?
>>
>>I can't think of one - not that this is a huge deal, just that VFP has the proverbial "whole enchilada"
>>
>>I think this might be why MSFT has had some trouble as to where to market the product....
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>DD
>>
>>
>>
>>>>What??? I agreed with most of your post.
>>>>
>>>>The only thing I took exception to was your comment that VFP is a vital part of Visual Studio. I don't think VFP is a vital part of Visual Studio. Perhaps I am taking a literal interpretation of your words. If you don't agree, fine. Don't twist my response into something that it was not...
>>>>
>>>>No hostility here. Rather, I think there is a little over-sensitivity on your part...< s >....
>>>
>>>Hey John,
>>>Taking the same literal approach to the other members of VS, I don't think any can be called "vital". However, all are "integral".
>>>
>>>Visual C++ - system-level needs (when you absolutely have to be able to get under the hood and tinker)
>>>Visual Basic - UI development. This is MS's stance and I agree with it. It can also be used for those of us who need API-level access but aren't quite up to speed with C++.
>>>Visual FoxPro - middle-tier COMponent development. VFP handles data manipulation, calculation and interpretation better than most environments and the ease that this can be done (for those who know the power) is really quite satisfying.
>>>
>>>Sure you can move the players around but each have their strengths and weaknesses.
>>>
>>>Later.