>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???

Either we're picky or we're not. We don't get to be picky when it suits us, and more general when it doesn't. In this case, "snippet" smacks of his information being VERY old. And since I've never heard any facet of C++ described as "amateur," and I know that VB is a great language in spite of not having inheritance, he's blown his credibility BEFORE I got to the one-way tools comment.

>>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..."

Precisely.

>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...

Right. When I see oversimplifications, I note the concepts, and move on. Obviously the person doesn't have all the facts. Likewise, I tend to ignore those observations indicating that a language is weak due to one specific point, without taking anything else into consideration. What the reader needs to do is to take a critical look at these "so-called" comparisons. A fair comparison shows objectivity in its language (no left-handed complements, either) and its attention to detail, including the number of items compared and appropriate (and current) terminology.

>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..

Right, as I said, note the concepts and move on. He's obviously biased in this write-up, and he's known for being very biased towards dBase. OK, he has a problem with one-way tools, and there are several other concepts (for example, Open Source--and I'll state right now that I'm NOT qualified to speak to Open Source issues) that he's illustrated. He's biased, but he may have good points. Move on to other sources, and subject them to the same scruitiny. His is one opinion. Just like I need to see more than one "problem" with a language (e.g., VB sucks because it lacks inheritance), I need to see more than one opinion that dBase has better features than a lot of languages, or that I need to jump ship to a two-way tool, or that VFP should consider Open Source. But I will be a little more aware of these things in my constant evaluation of new tools to add to my toolbox.

>Happy holidays!!

And to you! :)

- della