>>First, I chose linked lists as an example to learn about the concepts of interfaces in general, and enumerable collections in particular. I'm sorry that for you the example--linked lists--is too basic to have been compelling. I will admit to having had quite a bit of fun with it after having spent 17 years "doing data." I enjoyed revisiting a comp sci concept that I hadn't used in quite a while. Second, the linked list example was suggested to me by someone doing C# coding who needed a linked list. Of all the wonderful Framework classes there isn't a linked list and while we in the data-centric world have little need of them, other programmers doing other types of programming do.
>>
>
>There are plenty of places where linked lists of many sources are the right solution - routing, content packing, scheduling, solutions based on directed graphs - I've run into these things frequently in my work both in and out of VFP. VFP is not the best environment for a linked-list solution; surprise; it's not the ideal environment for doing complex n-dimensional array manipulations, either. Nancy took the position of 'this is something VFP doesn't do well; C# is a better choice'; the same applies in the other direction as well.
>
>If the VFP developers' position is "heavens, our MVPs are embracing non-VFP solutions!", well, it started years ago; JVP certainly, me (I'd guess that VFP represents less than 25% of my production code now going into new environments) and lots of others working in ASP and .Net - this does not represent an abandonment of VFP, but a recognition that a multi-tool environment offers tremendous advantages to the developer. I would not write a compiler or lexical parser in VFP by choice - there are other environments better suited to these tasks. And I wouldn't want to write a simple desktop inventory system in raw C++, either.
>
>Bravo for taking a brave stand and showing the community that VFP is not the best tool for everything!

Well said, Ed (and Nancy too< s >).