>I'm proposing to develop an application in Visual Fox 5.0 and my client says they're adopting the entire Microsoft Office suite and why can't I do the app in Access???
>
>I NEED AMMO!!!
>Please contribute any good technical reasons why VFox would be preferred over Access...
>
>Thanx a bunch!
>
>P.S. One concern (the usual) was, "Microsoft probably won't be going forward with VFox anyway..."
>
>
>HELP!

I have developed applications with the latest version of both. I feel VFP is superior from a developer's point of view. I also feel each has strengths over the other. End users like Access because of 1) marketing and 2) marketing. :-)

Here are some strengths and weaknesses which quickly come to mind:

Access strengths:
- Query by form is inherent in forms' functionality
- Less resource intensive during run time
- Seems more durable during run time
- Functions related to form's objects can be seen all at once
- Exports to HTML, IDC, and ASP inherently (crudely)
- Accepted by end user more readliy (probably because it is included in a software suite)

Access weaknesses:
- Methodology limits experienced developers
- Restricts creativity in creating solutions for end users
- Major idiosyncrasies for developers (forced to learn to do things in complicated time consuming manners)
- Properties do not appear alphabetically in properties window
- Cannot change file structures of tables with data as easily as VFP
- Relies on Visual Basic and Data Access Object for custom development and data access
- Reach developmental threshhold quicker (less creatitivity can be used)
- Can only open one project at a time
- Apps take just as long to develop as VFP but end user expects a quick turn around because of marketing ploys
- Menus are harder than VFP menus to work with
- Object syntax reference is unclear (! vs. .)

VFP strengths
- More control for the developer
- True object oriented development with classes
- Visual classes
- Quicker app development time once a methodology is laid out
- Quicker data access

VFP weaknesses
- Resource intensive during run time

Richard Druckenmiller