>><snip>

>>>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.

Do you hear anything different from pro-VB guys or pro-C++ guys? Really, they all love their favourite tools and think they can do anything. Good programmers are all primadonna's. So?

iro whether a VFP developer can out program a VB programmer or whatever: I would say its a pointless argument because a great programmer using an older tool will out program an average programmer using the latest tool. I think you will agree.

iro VB being the most popular development language: this in itself means nothing iro the power/flexability/purpose/strength/etc of the langauges concerned.


>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?

I cannot recall too many, if any. But I will not deny the existence of such posts and indeed would almost expect that in a pro-VFP forum. I have had Delphi, VB, C++, Java, etc, programmers all argue with each other, in a friendly way, why their tool was best. So?


>>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...

Your opening paragraph was only opinion, unsupported by facts.


>>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...

I cannot respond without reading it first, now can I? And I always read your posts John becuase hope springs eternal :)


>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.

I agree that arguments of VB vs VFP vs C++ vs C# etc are pointless. I have stated so many times. The two fundamental problems with such arguments are (a) you cannot objectively quantify nor qualify the value of the programmer and (b) different tools have different strengths and application.