>>>After reading Mr. Pikman's pointless reply to a posting (a low-level flame), I would like to request that you delete my account (RMIMHF).
>>>
>>>Thank you,
>>>Jack Mendenhall
>>
>>Just as a matter of curiousity, how long have you been working with VFP? If you are using the wizards, I'd suspect not long. Regardless of what tool is chosen for a project, someone, somewhere can trash it because if it wasn't invented here (read .... with the tool (pick one) I know best), then it must stink. VFP was added to Visual Studio for a reason....because nothing beats it in data processing until the database is so large that one must convert to a different back end.
>>
>>Steve Despres
>I have been working since the summer of 1994 with FoxPro 2.6 (Windows and DOS). When I joined my current employer, they had all their systems running in FoxPro 2.0 LAN, which I suggested that they recompile in FoxPro 2.6a DOS. All the code is really poorly written DBase III. The original authors knew little about data normalization nor the power tools offered by the Fox IDE.
>
>In the summer of 1997, we tried using VFP 3.0, but found the forms too slow and the DBC prone to corruption. Wanting something fast, we chose Delphi with the hope of moving to a SQL server backend. Unfortunately, a small Delphi project failed miserably because a Fox coder with 10 years experience couldn't make the leap from Fox to Delphi, missing the whole OOP concept.
>
>With the failure of that project, the owner's of the company wanted to stick MS as well as try to salvage some of the old Fox code. That is the only reason, besides a lack of experienced C/S developers, that I am working with VFP today.
>
>If anyone had noticed my title--Manager--they would understand that it is my job to research and compare different development tools. I know Fox handles LAN data better than any other desktop database out there. However, I think it is very weak on the front end (really the reverse of Delphi).
>
>From what I continue to read, people are happy to use work arounds to get something out in production. I expect more out of a tool.
>
>If you read anything Microsoft has published concerning what's new in VFP 5.0, MS makes a big deal that the forms are 2-5 times faster than VFP 3.0. So form speed has always been an issue with VFP! I have not been the only one in the Fox community complaining about it, or MS would never have addressed it!
>
>As far as Wizards go, I simply wanted to throw 4 or 5 forms quickly together to test my classes. I'm a little busy to drag & drop fields all day. Unlike Mr. Pikman, the C/S "Specialist", I have 4 programmers, an operational specialist, and a WAN to manage each day.
>
>Enough said. I wish I could spend all day coding, but that's not my job any longer...


I don't know exactly what you were told by the MSP, but chances are they pushed VB. VB also is drag and drop controls on forms. The difference is the OOP, which, once you've built your class libraries, is much faster to develop and maintain. I talk to many people who are new to VFP and tell them to learn VFP in this order 1) Form designer 2) DBC 3) OOP. While designing C/S applications many people think only of the front and back ends and fail to think about data handling of the result set. VB is not designed for this, VFP is...another plus for VFP.

We are really a friendly group and will be happy to help you solve your problems.