>I agree with the thrust of your logic, George, but do have a comment or two.
>
>1) Some workarounds can be detrimental to code in the longer run. A workaround generally stays in code long after the proper fix is available. A complex "workaround", though legitimately a "workaround", can be detrimental to performance (even an easy one can) and make code difficult to grasp in later maintenance.
>Some other "workarounds" can be detrimental to VFP itself. Some bugs are enough to keep people away from VFP7, their "workaround" being to stay with VFP6 or earlier.
>
>Any bug that jeopardizes data integrity is a critical bug, even if it happens only once every 9 months in any shop.
>
>We have "service packs" and we have "hot fixes" and there no doubt are other mechanisms too. I've always wondered why MS couldn't release a fix (or group of them) when they were remedied rather than wait for a new release to let us have them.
>
>regards

Jim,

My only concern here is people not upgrading to 7.0 because of the lack of an SP2. I've found 7.0 remarkedly stable. There are some circumstances where I've found that my productivity has been increased eightfold simply because of Intellisense. I've found that with each passing version, and with each passing SP the product has become more and more stable. Folks shouldn't wait for the next version simply because there's not going to be an SP for the current one. If they do, they're missing a lot.