My mistake -- I didn't notice the link. You're right -- *they* are the ones who are listing all of those languages together, not you. My apologies.

A for what VFP should be listed as... no, not a word processor. But in my comments, I wasn't referring to their list of 25. I was referring to the sidebar list of three. My point was that it does not belong in the same sidebar discussion along with SQL Server, SyBase, and Oracle. We've all engaged in various threads about "whether VFP is a true database" in the past and so I won't rehash it all at this point, but all *business* issues aside, there are technical differences that just make FoxPro a different animal. And, a sidebar discussing "upgrading" to a dbms needs to provide some general points about the databases it discusses, and FoxPro is just too different to expect the author to do so .... SQL Server, Sybase, and Oracle might not be exactly the same, but they are within the same general family of tools. You could at least represent these three as an orange, a tangerine, and a grapefruit. Foxpro, in this analogy, might be an avocado (for the record, I *like* avocado!). I don't think you can expect a sidebar to be able to do justice for such a wide range.

Having said that, exclusion from the linked list is bad news.




>If VFP is not to be listed as a database, then what should it be listed as a Word Processor?
>
>PCMag has a link on the article which lists approx. 25 database languages. VFP is not on that list. I briefly read the article and noticed it was directed at simple database engines, and ignored the remainder of the article.
>
>The link to the different databases they have done articles on did interest me.