Jim.

I hope you didn't think I'd forgotten about you.< g >

>>>Why? My opinion, as I previously stated, is based on a significant >>>amount of experience. You and I debating the issue will resolve >>>nothing. There are no facts that you can bring to bear that will >>>change my opinion, and I have given already the basis for it, which, >>>you don't accept.

>>Tamar,

>>I think what Jim was saying is that opinions are, necessarily, >>subjective and, thus, open to changing based on new experiences. >>Facts, otoh, are truths, which no amount of discussion or experience >>will change.
>
>>Oh certainly. Wouldn't debate that point for a second. I would say, >>however, that an opinion, grounded on significant, personal >>experience is somewhat different. It's usually based on overwhelming >>evidence that the opinion is, indeed close enough to fact (for the >>individual) that it is treated as such.

>Works for you - your opinion is your fact, though it is hard for >others to be able to discern that when the topic at hand has no fact >and is entirely based on opinion in the first place.

And it should work for you too. I can only make decisions on what I know firsthand. To do otherwise would be foolish.

>I, on the other hand, also have "significant personal experience" but >would never dream to tell someone that my OPINION is, indeed, fact! I >realize that for me it is fact, but I also realize that the subject is >not fact-based to start with, so any other discussion could be >enlightening to me. In fact JimB did change my opinion to some extent >(as related to CLR/VFP).

Well then let me give you a "fact". Programming isn't about the language. It's about implementing solutions to problems. Care to disagree? If so, I'll be happy to engage.

Now, and assuming you won't disagree, in the design process, designing to the particular tool is a grevious mistake. Design is independent of the tool. Why? Proper desing describes the problem and solves it in general, non-language specific, terms. Putting a languge specific impelemenattion is a mistake. Why? Becuse it focuses more on the language rather than the problem.

>>Naturally, in an instance like this, there are a number of external >>factors that come into play. For example, some people may have a >>harder time than others adopting to a new language or paradigm. For >>them, a forum like this or CServe can be of value as not only a help >>source, but a support group as well.

I'll assume this is a well-intentioned general comment and leave it alone.

Good decision

>>Given, however, that I'm who I am, and don't seem to have as hard a >>time learning a new language, it is difficult for me to relate. I can >>only express that which I know.

>As I was trying to do, until told to do otherwise!

Well, if your experience runs contrary to mine, let me know.
>

>>Oh sure. Here, however, I strongly sense that some of the underlying reasoning as to why learning another language would be terribly difficult was based pure and simply on FUD and not much more.

>Maybe you could explain to my face where I promoted FUD or based my >reply on FUD!?!?!?!

I never said you did. I said that it was my feeling that the underlying reason for this was FUD. One more thing, I never say anything on-line that I wouldn't say to someone face to face, This is both in a reply to a post or referencing another post. In short, I think that to do otherwise is cowardice. It's real easy to talk to someone separated by hundreds of miles and say nasty things. It's quite another to say thing to someone directly. You won't find me backing down from this.

>I said that there was more to programming than "syntax" and used a few >examples from VFP to show the difference between knowing the syntax >and "knowing" the language.
>Look at something as simple as the INDEX ON command. The syntax is >pretty simple. But it didn't help me at all the first time I wanted to >index on a date field. It was of no help when I needed to have a TAG >composed as string+number. I had to learn the hard way that my >personal functions are a no-no in its expression or a FOR clause. It >was so long ago that I forget what else the syntax alone didn't tell >me about INDEX ON. I truly admire that a similar command in another >language would not cause you any grief. My assumption going in will be >that it will, until I see differently.

Again, this focuses on the language rather than the problem.

>I had started to look at VB6 (spent about 3 weeks, very part time) and >had learned the syntax, had learned the different source 'types' and >their usage/intent and had done all the exercises in the MS VB >'course". Then MS announced .NET and the uproar from the VB community >started. I stopped immediately, reasoning that I'd wait for VB7 >instead.

Types? I'm not sure I understand. VFP is an exception in that it is loosely typed. Most languages are not. Is it Microsoft's fault that this is the case?

>Some, with that exposure, would call themselves "VB Programmers". I, >on the other hand, wouldn't even mention it, even if asked. It took me >a long while to be able to call myself a highly skilled FP programmer >and feel near the point now to say the same for my VFP skills.

I'm a programmer. Not a VFP programmer, simply a programmer. As I said earlier, programming is about design, not language.

>The prospect of a similar investment does not, truthfully, turn me on >at all. The idea of promoting myself as a VB programmer without >KNOWING many of the intricacies of VB just isn't on in my head.

See above.

>That's where I was coming from. FUD, no. Opinion, yes. My "fact", yes. >Willing to discuss, yes. Capable of changing my stance, low but >possible.

Again, I never said that you were promoting FUD. Is my stance that programming is about design and not language and opinion? Yes, but it is one that's been borne out time and time again.