>Hi Tore,
>
>John is a very intelligent and knowledgeable developer. For that reason, I get upset when he's on the wrong track and I believe that he knows that he's on the wrong track but does it anyway.
>

See my response to Tore - and you will understand why:

1. I am not on the wrong track and ;
2. If I were on the wrong track - I would admit it

If anybody is on the wrong track and won't admit it - it's you when you say that features have not been cut for budgetary reasons. Tell you what - go to Ken and ask him to post something up here to challenge what I wrote. If you can do that - and he brings something to the table - I will gladly admit that I was wrong. No offense, but you saying that it is not so does not work. If it did, in effect - your argument would be "JVP is wrong because I say he is wrong." It is a circular argument - and being the logical fellow you are - you can appreciate why that is not valid. I believe it was you who implied that my "reasoning" was devoid of logic. Seems to me that I offered a conclusion and laid down a series of facts that have yet to be challenged -and that those facts allow one to reasonably make the conclusion I made. That seems logical to me...

The fact is John - COM debugging has been an issue ever since the ability to create COM Components in VFP was realized. Makes total sense right? After all - in VB - we could not only create COM Components - we could debug them as well. IntelliSense was an issue as well. 5 years later, that feature was finally addressed. VB to a certain extent - was the gold standard on which VFP features were compared. The mantra was simply this: "VB has it, why can't VFP have it?"

It is a totally absurd argument to say that nothing has been cut for budgetary reasons or that com debugging and related items were not discussed or requested.

Regards,

< JVP >