>>I see what you're driving at, but don't forget there's a price that comes along. If you're going to have to instatiate one of these objects, you'll take a performance hit in comparison to just calling a function. Depending on the curscumstances, it might not be feasible in that regard.
>
>Yeah, these poor 1.75gHz computers are sure being over worked. Keep in mind we're talking about VFP8, maybe 9, 10 here. I woudln't expect VFP7 to run on 486s, I wouldn't expect VFP9 to run on P2s. Look at the CLR, even the variabels are objects there.
>
>And would it be overhead for the compiler or the Development environment? Just thinking out loud here, I'm not up to speed when it comes to the internals.
>
>Besides, the amount of overheard is becoming less and less signficant, IMO, just like building an EXE 30mbs and expecting it be downloaded every where. In even todays world, thats not crazy.

There are certain things, such as devices, where an object makes sense. However, for others (a string for example) it does add to the overhead, and, yes, even these days, it's significant, especially in repetitive calls.

Let's not forget that even with a 1.75 ghz machine, the app isn't getting all of that clock speed, only a fraction of it. It has to share clock cycles (and memory as well) with any other application that's running. Believe me, some folks open everything that they'll possibly need on start up. Add to that whatever drivers and so on that are also running, well, I think you get the idea.