>>I am still a VFP die hard, but feel my weapons are getting outdated. I would like some alternative views.
>
>Are you faulting VFPs OO capabilities or the OO tools delivered with the product? Yes, I agree that other tools have better grids, or better toolbars, etc. etc., but that does not make those other tools themselves any stroger than VFP in the OO arena.
>
>I am not saying that VFP is the end-all be-all for OO stuff. Some people insist that because it doesn't have operator overloading or multiple inheritance that it is weaker. I personally do not think mult- inheritance or operator overloading are important. VFP offers a simple syntax for creating objects, supports inheritance, and packages everything nicely.

If you are looking for the purest implementation of object-oriented design and programming, then none of Microsoft's products (with the exception of C++) begin to make the mark. What you are looking for is something on the order of a Smalltalk or Python, both of which are full, rich object-oriented languages. However, I believe it was Bjarne Stroustrup, the primary writer of the C++ language, that said that there was really no such thing as object-oriented languages - that one could write object-oriented code in any language - but that certain languages were more specifically designed for the paradigm, and those are the languages we call "object-oriented".

That sadi, I should point out that VFP is the language in which I first learned object-oriented concepts, and what made it possible for me to understand other object-orented language implementations when I studied them. So VFP can't be that far off from the original concepts.