Hi Ken,

What I understood from the original and fixed case study was that originally CDS was using mainly VFP and now they have taken VS.NET and SQL server for their main tools while still using VFP "...While still using Visual FoxPro as a key part of the solution..."

So if they were earlier using mainly VFP, what the next sentence from the case study would mean to us who are still using mainly VFP "...and would have left us with our original code, based on a dated technology..."

Maybe it would have been better saying f.ex that "...and would have left us with our original code, with the current version not suitable to fulfill all our web based goals fluently..." . Somehow "dated technology" sounds to me that all VFP is doomed.


I also think that there is an inconsistency when they are saying: "...Instead, using the .NET Framework, we were able to write reusable components, which will save us time in future versions..."

and just about right after above: "We have a set of Visual FoxPro COM DLLs, which we are using in our .NET application via COM Interop."

..eh are they using and can they write reusable components with VFP or not?

AT