Hi Craig

You do not have to define a form in code with two-way tools. You define the form visually but and while you design it, the code is being written in a text file. If you change the code in the text file it will be reflected in the visual form. There is only one file the text file. The form designer just renders it. I find two-way programming faster than VFP's vcx/scx solution because you can work in the Form Designer and the text file at the same time both are dynamically updated as changes are made. So you can choose to use which every is more appropriate for the task at hand.

I used the newest version of Visual dBase recently and found that I could design forms and classes etc. more quickly than in VFP. I can easily change the parent class just by editing the text file. There is no need to Hack the vcx etc. You do not have to delete the method code from a vcx before distributing etc. Find and replace can be done across multiple files.

So I do not see and drawbacks in comparision with VCX/SCX but I do see several positive gains.

Thanks
Simon White




>>>>That is great. Maybe one day they'll get rid of those goofy VCX/SCX files altogether.
>>>
>>>I'd hate to give up the VCX/SCX format. There are all kinds of things you can do processing classlibs as a table that are much harder working with text files.
>>
>>Name some "things".
>>
>>It's called "hacking", and wouldn't be necessary if one had an ASCII representation of the Class or Form.
>
>It isn't hacking, but there is NO WAY I want to define a form in code. Doing this visually is the only way to go.