>
I think what Chris was saying is that we haven't worked with "snippets" in a long time. Technically, when we look at methods displayed in the visual designer, yes, indeed, they are fragments of the whole, and can be called "snippets." However, that particular term hasn't been used in years; we now edit "methods." I guess where the perceived "bashing" lies is that Katz shouldn't have "dusted off old copies of Visual FoxPro and Visual Basic"--leading the current VFP developer to conclude that perhaps he should have used current versions.
>

Whether you call them snippets or code blocks or whatever, don't you think that is a bit picky??? A bit semantic. The core of the issue - as it related to VFP -was the difference between 1 and 2 way tools. Why was this so hard to see???

>IAC, when someone can boil a whole experiment down to one paragraph, and blanket say that everything needed add-ons, that another product has "amateur" features, and references old terminology and versions -- and attempted to duplicate a current project (how long has he been working on the project?) in *four* different languages in "a couple of solitary days" -- it seems to me that the whole experiment and the language used in the write-up is biased. OF COURSE I would have problems duplicating my projects in languages I don't use! And to devote less than a DAY to experimenting with each language? Please--this can't be completely objective.
>

You mean like when people say thinks like "Access sucks..." Or "VB Sucks because it does not have inheritance..."

Della, the world is full of people that love to oversimplify. In the absence of having a command of the facts, folks do this. VFP'ers, VB'ers, and every other community is guilty of this...


>And if these two paragraphs aren't objective, what can I make of the rest of the story?
>
>Was Katz "bashing" the other development environments? Well, he wasn't *overtly* bashing them. Was this an objective comparision? Nope. The *way* Katz made the comparisons -- giving minimal detail, and choosing his words to ensure a lesser desireability -- indicates a lack of objectivity. If he did do a completely objective study, he sure blew it when he wrote up the results. It's not just WHAT is said; HOW it is said is important, too.
>

Granted, he did not word things in an artful manner. That means one needs to sift through the BS to get at the core of things - assuming one is there. FWIW, I have heard that Katz is A #1 dBase Nazi. That said, I don't think he can be objective. That still does not mean you throw the baby out with the bath water..

Your points Della - as usual are spot on!!

Happy holidays!!


< jvp >