These are very interesting (and good) points. Seems like a good topic to write a paper about at some point...

Markus




>>>> Right now, I plan to become familiar with .NET but wait for better RAD
>>>> capabilities directly from .NET or third party tools, while getting
>>>> immediate results with VFP.
>>
>>Interesting points. What parts of the .NET RAD tools do you find lacking compared to VFP's? There are some obvious ones of course. The ease of creating a local VFP database and directly integrate it into a prototype is hard to beat. But besides that, I would be interested in your opinion...
>>
>
>I began playing with .NET since some months ago. And it seems to me that .Net is not quite there for me compared to VFP.
>
>1. It's difficult to subclass existing visual classes. You can do it but not visually. And it seems that you have to put them in a dll to use it on a form.
>
>2. Of course, you loose the command window so useful to test some function interactively, etc.
>
>3. You loose some time waiting for compilation before testing your code, forms, etc. But the advantage of .NET is that much more errors are catched at compile-time.
>
>4. Winforms Forms seems to be somewhat rough on the edges. The toolbar is not very advanced for example. The Grid cannot contains anything but textbox and checkbox.
>
>5. Typed datasets generate tons of code that seem difficult to change if the underlying structure of the table is changing.
>
>6. Databinding Winforms looks like a lot more complex.
>
>7. The 2 way form designer makes me feel uneasy, it's generating a lot of code.
>
>8. It always seem to take much more code to do the same things in .NET
>
>
>Like I said somewhere else, it looks like that .NET 2.0 will adress some of these issues. The new widgets for example seem very promising.
>
>But, I'm trying to learn more about .NET and maybe one day I'll feel as comfortable with it than with VFP. I hope a web site like VFPconversion.com will help me in this processus. Thanks for putting this material on-line.