>>>Not that you'd want to, but VC++ can be used.
>>
>>True, but C++ is on a completely different animal all-together. And, as some have already commented, the piece never comes out to say that VFP is actually better at these tasks. The piece just says that VFP is "extremely fast".
>
>I made the original post here. I read the article three times to make sure I read it correctly..and I agree with that statement.
>
>>
>>Still, it is nice to see VFP in a positive light such as this..
>
>Yup, it is.

Agreed. Just IMO, but I think that if I were a VB developer, who knew neither VFP or VC++, and had to produce a COM component, I think I'd find learning VFP far less a daunting task than VC++, if only from the syntax.