John,

I'm taking all the "personal stuff" out of this reply, I didn't enter the thread for any of that unproductive garbage.

>Dave - while comparing .NET to VFP can be a valuable excercise, it is almost a waste of time comparing Fox data to sql server. Simply put - its not 1990 anymore. We are not limited by DBF's. By their nature, they cannot scale, they have zero security, and are difficult to remotely administer without the aid of other tools. SQL Server is extremely flexible. The presense of MSDE alone pretty much took away the last reason to use DBF's. Of course, we have had mdb's for a while - and quite frankley - I would likely go with mdb's before dbf's. I suppose that makes me a fox-hater....

There is still a whole class of apps out there where security is not an issue and where dbf is as scalable as the client needs, and where the client does not have a DBA on staff to maintain the database. MSDE still has a 5 connection limit right? So the 6th simultaneous user forces the jump to SQL. DBF doesn't have that constraint, it can handle the medium size connection load better than MDB.

>SQL Server is the hands-down winner as far as flexibility, scaleability, and robust-ness is concerned.

Flexibility - exactly how do you define/measure this? In some respects I'd say SQL is less flexible. But I'd like to see your definition of flexible first.

>As far as a discussion concerning .NET and VFP - I too think that can be valuable.

That's my hope.

>It would be interesting how some would attack that discussion.

I hope by attack here you mean solve a given problem, not the more negative connotation.

>If one trys to pit Fox+Fox Data against .NET+SQL Server - I think Fox loses on data alone.

There exists three classes of data-based apps in the world: 1) those where DBF is appropriate and 2) those where SQL is appropriate and 3) a middle ground where either DBF or SQL would be appropriate. #2 and 3 are what interest me the most. In a lot of the data centric work that I end up doing the best method has been to pull the data down from SQL into DBFs, mess with it and push the result back up to SQL.

And I think the most productive discussions will come from how combinations of VFP + .Net + DBF + SQL solve client problems.

>VFP vs. .NET on flexibility - that is a tougher question to address. Much depends on your point of view. If you primarily write monolithic VFP apps using local dbf data - then I doubt there is any way you could see .NET as being more flexible. I would say that if that is the type of app you write - stick with Fox. On the other hand - if you write client server apps - but you use remote views and have heavy reliance on the "VFP Way" of doing things - then again, your viewpoint will be skewed in favor of Fox. Again, I don't know how these people could see .NET has being more or at least as flexible. Putting the call out for the general populous to judge is a shrewed move because no matter what you put forth - the vast majority of Fox developers will still view Fox has being more flexible. The reason: it is the tool they know best - and there - it is more flexible.

How is it that a remote view is fundamentally any different than a SPT cursor or different than an ADO.Net view to the backend? They are all just a data layer.

>About the only people I know of that could begin to see .NET has being more flexible are those developers who eschewed the "VFP way" of doing things - in certain significant ways. Developers that used products like DataClas for example, or used SQL Pass Through, Components, etc - adopted n-tier development, actually used VB, etc - these developers would at least have a chance at giving .NET a fair evaluation.

Please don't lump everyone into such confined buckets ok? Sweeping statements like these are what raise much of the ill feelings. Neither you or I know every VFP developer, nor every .Net developer nor every VB nor every Java developer. Anyone open minded enough to seriously look at this issue is capable of looking at two sets of code and evaluating which of them solves a problem in the best manner in their own opinion.