>Does the fact that my SUV can carry more than my bicycle mean that the SUV is more flexible?
>
>No, it just means that the SUV can carry more. The bicycle is easier to park; there are large parts of town where bikes can go but a car cannot; and the bike helps me live longer.
>
>Obviously "flexibility" is not judged by selecting a single case that suits one's stance. If I need to get from A to B quickly, a helicopter may be more useful than either the SUV or the bike. Surely we all agree that it would be illogical to claim that a helicopter is the most flexible transport option for me, based on that single premise; or to insist that this single case forms an irresistable rebuttal of the assertion that some other option is most flexible.

Yes, this thread seems to have gone off the rails and completely forgot about one of the initial arguments, which was flexibility.

Mike and JVP were giving scenarios which could've been handled by either Language+DB, in certain circumstances one would struggle more than the other, one language can breeze through some scenarios which the other will struggle with, that is NOT flexible, flexible is managable, if you have to create a serious work-around to a problem, that is NOT managable, if it takes you more than a couple of hours to implement a solution to a problem, that is NOT flexible IMO.

There are features in Fox and SQL Server that make them both flexible in different scenarios, some more flexible in some scenarios than the other, although I admit I can't point them out, I'm sure there are a few.

If one thing was to come out of this argument, it would be how impressive a file-based database stands up to a server-based database, like I said, I don't think there are that many (serious) drawbacks in the fox database that make it feeble in comparison to SQL Server, fact of the matter is that SQL Server is purely a DB, and there is no way that a pure DB should not be able to cope with what Fox can handle, and I don't think there is.

Kev