Hey Geo,
>With all due respect to both of you, I don't think that the debate should be .NET + SQL Server versus VFP, but rather .NET + SQL Server versus .NET + VFP + SQL Server.
I dunno. I like my claim more. Think about this, we're considering flexibility, right? John keeps showing that SQL Server creams VFP at high volume, high reliability. Thats pretty much just the enterprise market. I can think of so many more uses for databases where the demanding requirements and price of the server software would make it an uneconomic solution. Again, so for larger enterprise apps VFP has the disadvantage. But the topic of this thread is "flexibility" and claiming kingdom in the enterprise is not equal to "more flexible."
If you're primarily working in the enterprise, OTOH, SQL Server isn't in use as much as Oracle or IBM databases. So if that was your arena you probably would be using something besides SQL Server anyways.
http://www.midrangeserver.com/mid/mid051502-story03.htmlThats a slight non-sequiter but I'm putting into perspective that John's requirements are applicable to a specific set of applications and that there are better products out there for those areanas.
