Old code >>>In general, yes, this is sort of nonsense, because it is not hard to incorporate SQL from the beginning (George). I won’t decide for the fastest way of development, but what I can say is that this shoud be subjective to the quality, openness etc. However : >>>Where this may be the general standpoint, there are (quite) a few out there, just not having the possibility to re-write all the code, and where the new code will differ in terms of structure (logic). The structure can remain the same, but performance will (highly) degrade. >>>Like you started the thread with some expectations of potential respondents, I can add one : it is no argument at all to say that one should use the latest techniques, and therefore this idea would be stupid. >> >>Peter, >> >>Since I assume you're referring to me in the above, just a short response. My statement was that designing for a backend server as opposed to native tables requires a different design paradigm. Unfortunately, there are (apparently) some folks who don't realize this and try treat the backend in the same manner they did native tables. So, in short, I agree whole heartedly with the above. > >George, >I agreed with you in advance too, and only referred to the topic by your name (indeed). So, not having the argument "large bunch of old code" anyone stating the things you did, is dead right. So what I did is adding a real argument to Jim's idea, with including this argument (old code) IMO really is a good idea, being possibly even better when it is not about xBase only. >By no means I tried to offend you George, and I hope you didn't feel it like that.
No, didn't feel that way at all, Peter. I was just trying to underscore your point. One of the things I'm doing right now is porting old code to SQL Server, so I'm acutely aware of all the differences.< g >
