Bonjour Stéphane

>I totally am confused with this comment.

You should not. I am sorry if i disturbed you.

I just try to argue that VFP is not really a software to
develop software packages, more applications than packages.

It is fine to prototype a package (talking heavy ones)
but it competes with pb more than with delphi,
with vb more than with c/c++.

As you have possibly done yourself, i have used
quite a number of programming alternatives.

In the past dbase, fox (i was using the fox beta...
back in the mid-80s),C and smalltalk and some
exotic stuff as well (for fun only).

Yes fox and vfp were the most useful of all!
VFP string management is still impressive in
to-days standards. Yes it is a great tool.

Possibly because we handle a complex code (though not very big),
we now miss the sophisticated data structures that you find in
typical "programming languages".

I understand your point that most vfp programmers and possibly
most UT members do not need those data structures in their job
(examples: lists, dictionnaries and combinations of them array of them
list of dictionnaries, dictionnaries of objects...).

I expect you can emulate most of those data structure
with cursors, arrays and objects.

We just need them now as as well as we miss the kind of speed u
can get from delphi thru optimized middleware
(yes there are bunch of solutions faster than ado) and compiler
(minor improvement of course).

I accept that it's gonna be hell to program but C++ is worse.

A plus

François