Mike,

I didn't intend to make any accusations on either side here.. sorry if you took it that way.

It would be really great if something informative can come out of this thread. I don't have any idea how to pose a candidate problem that doesn't present a bias one way or the other.

There used to be (it might still be around for all I know) a programming contest held down in NC that found a need by a non-profit organization, teams entered using any and all languages that they wanted to use, they had a weekend do build a viable app. I think that's the sort of problem that needs to be presented and see what shakes out from a couple of different apps developed with each of the tools.

>>If it degrades into a "my tool is better than your tool" argument it doesn't do anyone any good.
>
>Again, I agree. I know you're not accusing me of the above but for the record I've only posted two comments in this entire thread that can be interpreted as opinions on databases, one of them being:
>
>"John, I think that I can demonstrate .NET + SQL Server _is_ less flexible."
>
>Immediately followed by:
>
>"Now, how do we go about agreeing on what defines a flexible solution?"
>
>as an attempt to discuss the flexibility of databases (see the title of this thread). Interestingly enough the second opinion posted in this thread was actually pro-SQL Server:
>
>"Like I said, your solution will most likely be cleaner and take victory on this point."
>
>Judging by some of John's comments on what he thinks I've said you almost have to assume that we've all been reading a different thread than him.