><snip>
>>
>>Interesting - but hardly surprising. I have long said that for all its power - VFP itself does more harm than good when it comes to the development of the developer. If Fox is what one first learned or all that one knows - chances are good that the developer's developer is stunted and crippled. It is not permanent by any means - but it is a hard cycle to break free from - particularly in the data-arena.
>
>I'm stunned! Speechless.

Good...


>
>>This by the way is the reason in large part - that I have long rejected the notion that good VFP developers necessarily translates into being a good developer in general.
>
>
Good "any language" developers dont necessarily translate into being good developers in general.
>

True - but that was not my point. For a long time, many Fox developers have perpetuated the myth that somehow - they are better than their counterparts in the VB world. Too often, I have heard the anecdotes of how it took 5-10 VB developers to match what a single VFP developer could do with VFP. I have to tell you - I have never seen direct proof of any of that. What I have seen direct proof of was that despite the claims - VB continued to remain the worlds most populate software development language.

And - how many times have you seen VB getting bashed up here - either because of the perceived inferitority of the developer or the tool itself?



>>A good developer's skill sets IMO - are language/tool agnostic. A good developer can suceed in ANY tool. This is but one reason why good developers are orders of magnitude better than those that occupy the middle regions of the bell curve.
>
>Agreed, but...

There is always a but....



>
The format of this argument/post is to first state something that is ambiguous and wishy-washy and then follow up with a perfectly reasonable statement leaving the reader with the impression that the entire post was reasonable. I believe it’s called the Cinderella effect.
>

What was ambiguous or wishy washy about what I said? Was I unclear? I think you got the point...

>
The converse technique that is also heavily used is to first make a few factually correct statements, lulling the reader into a positive and agreeable frame of mind, and then follow up with opinion and conjecture again leaving the reader with the impression that all points were valid.
>

Asuming the goal is the initally put you in an agreeable frame of mind. The purpose of that first paragpraph was to shock the conscience a bit - which apparently it did. And nonetheless, you did read the post...

Whether you wish to admit it or not - the opinion that started the post is a valid one - supported with years of commentary from many - here and in other places. I recall too many discussions here when people would argue with me and say why tools like VB could never be considered serious development tools.