Fine...

Take a few aspects of the dotNET framework: the windows.forms namespace or sytem.data. Pick through it and see how the pieces work together, independent of a specific langauge. Are there warts? Sure. For example, the data binding process is a bit cumbersome. The idea that connection objects go directly/assocated on forms as opposed to an application-level property is kind of clunky IMO. I look at how the recordset was pryed apart in favor of the dataset and dataadapter objects. The separation of things from a specific langauge implementation, the fact that everything is an object says good things to me.

Now, to say that on a per se basis, .NET is not suited to desktop applications, I think throws the baby out with the bath water. I contend that if you could build desktop apps in VB 6, you sure as hell can build them in .NET. It is kind of like the myth that you could not build OO apps in VB 6. Not only did I prove that wrong, I manged to create a mini-framework in VB 6 as well. Why? For two reasons. First, it was important to test the underlying middleware I was creating and second, because it was purported time and time that it could not be done.

Because I have not chosen to box myself in the "fox box", I know that if pressed, if the requirements were to build a n-tier client/server app that used SQL Server, I could do it. You know that I am an advocate of DataClas VFP and COM. The DataAdapter is like the shell of a DataClas. To me, dealing with data in this fashion does not involve heavy lifting. Would it be a big deal for me to build a few template classes in .NET to handle the base characteristics of a typical data entry form: complete with buttons, etc? I don't think so.

Maybe that is what I will do: build a simple C/S app in .NET, using ADO .NET and the SQL Server Northwind Traders Database. And best of all, I will post the damn thing up on GotDotNet for free. FWIW, there are a bunch of samples up there already. It *can* be done and it can be done today. The longer VFP developers listen to folks preaching this cannot be done or that cannot be done in something other than Fox - the sooner they are going to get lapped.

My job is simple, to take a crowbar and pry some heads out of the sand by counter-acting what I see as bad advice. As for contributions, I have made a lot and perhaps, the most valuable are yet to come. And as usual, you like some others, will gladly drink from the well and syphon/glean whatever it is you can.

No FUD here, just brutal honesty, the kind you are hearing from MS these days on this forum. Sound familar?


>Dear JVP
>
>Compare and contrast contributions like
>
>>>JVP:Investing in VFP strategies is like putting earings on a pig or sending a whore flowers. In the end, you still have a pig, you still have a whore.<<
>
>with Rick Strahl re dotNET. Your loaded sound bites and generalisations deserve a D- compared to others' freely offered thoughts based on experience.
>
>I must also observe that people like Strahl do not blow their own trumpets or create threads about themselves or any of the rest of it, they get on with it in a humble manner that makes people feel comfortable and empowered to ask technical questions. If anybody is competent to comment on dotNET it is the man who wrote his own web server framework, updated it to keep it reasonably parallel with ASP syntax, continuously adds great features, spends heaps of time using dotNET and basically does not use his superior knowledge to FUD others out.
>
>If all you can offer is the "Party Line" supported by slogans, thank you very much, we've all got that, can we keep the ether clear for people who have experience we can learn from.
>
>Regards
>
>JR