Yes Jos,
In my reply to Kelvin's another thread I stated something like that. I even find it almost impossible to compare C# to C++ or core C :)
If my main problem was solving things like 'Towers of Hanoi', 'How can you put 8 queens on a chess board w/o threatining each other', 'natural language parsing' etc etc as it happened to me in old times I'd still be using Prolog or oCaml but nothing else :)
My reasoning is simple to choose my language(s) for any project :
-Can I do it with these language/tools
-Does the language conquer me or me is conquering the language/tools
-How much on the average does it take to code/test/debug if I used one or the other
-Performance if I'm able to do it in more than one
-Can I mix them for the best of their advantages
So in conclusion in fact I'm not comparing languages but the marriage between me and the language :) Biggest problem how many of them could I marry in my short life.
Cetin


>Hi Cetin. Yes I suspected this since we then split data retrieval and data convertion to xml into what, imo, are more logical and optimized operations. But as you say, a true comparison needs to optimize tests in both languages.
>
>In any case I think the comparison between C# and VFP is not meaningful since it ignores the purpose to which a langauge is to be used, ie it ignores using the "right tool for the job approach".
>
>Thanks for your comments and feedback.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>>Actually I tried it out of curiosity too :) It's +/- 1 secs better (8-9 secs).
>>I thought in turn someone would come up and say, well what if this was not for XMLing, or what if C# also used XML class and serializing instead of massaging a string as records are encountered (say a parser).
>>In my version, there is no update to a string variable. I think that's where VFP really sucks. Directly using lowlevel or VFP's copy to or building XMLed string directly to SQL itself keeps C# in dust :) (even C# version which I thought to be the fastest can't keep up. When it could just only loop the data w/o doing a single thing -like and empty scan..endscan- VFP finishes its stringifying).
>>If I weren't satisfied with pure VFP solution I could take it one step further and utilize VFP's FLL capability with the more created equal C++ :)
>>Cetin
>>
>>>Hi Cetin,
>>>
>>>Pardon my ignorance but instead of continually updating (adding to) a string memory variable could extracting the data to a temp cursor first and then using cursortoxml() be faster?
>>>