A software solution is an integration of programming engine functions, the architecture of those functions and user requirements.

Two programmers, solving the same problem, can deliver different performances. I have been involved in projects where xBase was used to replace a C+ solution. The xBase system blew the C+ system away.

Two programmers writing VFP solutions can deliver night and day performance. The macro VFP functions combined with exclusive use of SELECT statements on tables with every field indexed - and macro bindings - will run (maybe on the order of hundreds) slower that a VFP app that uses low (or core) functions.

Most of the time - it's not what language or platform a developer uses to solve a problem - but the design and architecture of the system.

It's like the pool hall story - where a guy comes in - and blows away the local talent with a broom handle instead of a queue.

A solution that benchmarks well in string functions, tells us little about how fast the integration will perform - unless all the solution does is 'reverse' a string.

Good holistic design practices + plus well positioned core functions = speed.

SET RANT OFF


>Hi to all who are interested in this topic.
>
>We have had an interesting discussion, including some research, under the topic 'VFP versus C++'. This new topic is kind of a continuation, but it has a slightly different focus. Al Doman postulates the hypothesis that the newer functions are faster than the older functions. See also his post: Re: VFP versus C++ Thread #842594 Message #843390.
>
>Several thoughts come to my mind:
>- Is 32-bit versus 16-bit indeed a factor?
>- Functions are unique, that is, no two functions do exactly the same thing. So, how can they be
> compared with respect to speed?
>- What is the hierarchy of the functions with regard to speed?
>- Can we say that the newest functions compete well with the C++ equivalents?