Craig,

Well its written and works in Fox, so who wants to rewrite? :)

>There's no reason not to leave it in Fox. Fox has blazing speed when manipulating strings. C++ will have the smallest footprint, but it's a bear to code string handling and even worse when doing COM (or so I'm told).
>
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>Well, I don't know where to put this one, so I thought I'd put it into Chatter.
>>
>>My question is this. Let's say you have a middle-tier object meant to be called by ASP, which is stateless and does no data handling whatsoever. Given that simple task, if you're me, you will prototype this in fox because that's the only language you can code in at the speed of thought.
>>
>>Question is, once the logic is all worked out, do you leave it in Fox? Or reimplement in VB or C++. Here is what I'm thinking, and I welcome any chatter on the subject:
>>
>>1. On the one hand, the Fox run-time chews up a lot of RAM, so it seems wasteful to load up fox run-time when you don't need the data engine, and just basically manipulating strings. And after reading Rick Strahl's article on MTS, I'm not so sure MTS can solve that problem.
>>
>>2. On the other hand, this object will always call a Fox object that does the data handling, so the run-time will be there in RAM anyway.
>>
>>3. On the gripping hand, maybe it's a good idea on general principles to always code something that will take up the smallest footprint. What if my Fox object is on another machine? Then I would be glad that I chose C++ or VB.
>>
>>4. But is the VB footprint really going to be smaller? It seems to me VB has its own run-times to load.
>>
>>5. And for that matter, will the C++ footprint really be that small? It seems that if I load up the ability to do COM and string handling, I might bloat up there also.
>>
>>That's all for now...