>>>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.

---> Thank you for sharing your background. It makes things a little easier to understand where you are coming from.

>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.

----> I too worked with 3.0 and I think that most would agree that form load was an issue with that product. I do feel that 5.0 addressed many, maybe not all, but many of the load issues. Sure, I'd like all of my forms to simply zip on in to the user, but I've found that if I take the time to explain why some forms might be a little slower (because of the amount of data they need to haul in), that most users appreciate the fact that all of their data is there when needed when the form does get there. I have not experienced any major complaints regarding form load for a 5.0 app.

----> As for the failed Delphi project, my opinion would be that the Fox programmer couldn't handle the OOP concept. Many here, including myself, struggled mightily to make the switch from 2.6 to 3.0. It was not a lack of programming experience, it was a lack of OOP experience. With my current knowledge, I do believe I could pick up Delphi rather quickly. It's just another tool and so I code my methods in Pascal instead of VFP. I work with VFP not because I was a previous 2.6 programmer, but because I still feel that for small to medium-large databases, it's still the best out there.

>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.

---> It tough for any company to accept the failure of a project with which they just sank a ton of $$ into. But I wonder if throwing a 2.6 programmer at it and expecting the transition from procedural to OOP without any training was the right thing to do. How could anyone expect that project to be a glowing success?

>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).

----> Yes, I did notice your title and do understand your job.

>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.

-----> Agreed that it would be nice for any tool to give us everything that we as a development community would want. I think that is why one sees MS marketing Visual Studio, a development suite of various tools to get the job done. Somewhere in that mix, a development team should be able to provide the customer what is desired.

>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!

----> A known issue that 3.0 was slow. But remember one other thing. VFP was a huge leap for a product to make compared to 2.6. It was radically different. I don't think that any one company could have made the perfect tool the first time around. I'm not defending MS, I could care less if they dropped off the face of the earth, but yes, I do use VFP and I'm comfortable with it despite what may be it's shortcomings.

>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.

----> Out of the 4 programmers, did your company send any one of them to a VFP training session? Might that minimal expense been far more productive than having you D & D all day trying to play with wizards that no one uses?

>Enough said. I wish I could spend all day coding, but that's not my job any longer...

-----> Appreciate your insight.....this discussion has been a little more beneficial.

Steve Despres