George,

SNIP
>
>>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.

Oh, it does, and just fine actually. I just can't resist telling my side to someone who feels so differently on the idea that syntax is the only difference (of any substance) between computer languages.

>
>>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.

I can't blame you for not seeing or remembering it, George, but here is a quote from a message I wrote replying to a point by Mike Stewart (see message #589713 for the whole thing): "Good design isn't done in any computer language". Hopefully that not only sums up my view of the point, but also clearly agrees with yours.

>
>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.

Based on my prior comment above, I'll ignore this except to say that I know and don't need preaching to on the matter.

>
SNIP
>
>>>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.

See below
>>
SNIP
>
>>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.

Sorry, George, but it is you who has attempted to shift the problem. The discussion is about languages - new ones and the ease of learning them! Design, at least in our discussion and actually through most of this huge thread, has hardly been mentioned.
You know, I wasn't even going to reply until I reread and this line sunk in.

Please keep to the topic rather than to shift it to another totally different issue. I don't appreciate having it implied that I do not know what design is or, as bad, that I don't know how to design (if I really think that language is what I use to design).

>
>>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?

You confuse "different source 'types'" with 'loose/strict typing'??? I meant .bas, .cls, .frm, .vbd etc.
>
>>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.

Sorry George, but it isn't. Programming is programming. Design is design. Programming uses a language that a computer program can discern and turn into actions inside the computer. Design is the process of describing a (new, sometimes) way to meet business objectives, often employing programmed applications and often employing procedural innovations of a manual nature.

>
>>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.

Yea, I saw it. There was nothing there!


>
>>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.

Sadly, it has only been borne out in you mind.

Your whole reply has the odour of belittlement and you use an old device - switching the topic and then lecturing as if the intended reader is clearly deficient in an even more basic topic than the one originally at hand.
If you intend to continue in this way, don't bother! When you'vr done this with me in the past, and you have, I simply stopped replying. You hit far too ow this time and a reply was mandated.

Jim (who designs in ENGLISH -a non MS product still)