>><snip>
>>>
>>>Go ahead...name one... Between .NET/SQL Server, I can do the same sorts of things you can do in VFP/DBF's....
>>
>>Actually then the comparison is .NET/SQL Server and VFP/SQL/DBF which is kind of the point Walter has been trying to make. Whatever.
>
>
>Many of Walters nits on .NET/SQL Server vs Fox/DBF's is that the former does not have seeks, locate fors, etc. The real issue of course is that every construct in Fox can be done in other environments. The key different with Fox/DBF's is that it is all file-based - which is a wholly different beast that a full-fledged RDBMS.
>
>Comparing tools - at least in this manner - is inherently flawed because it concentrates on specific commands. i.e., it is a tactical - not strategic approach. It focuses on the trees - not the forest - not the big picture.

Sorry for the delay in replying but its just too ironic and laughable. You are the meister of nit-picking dude. If you look up "nit-picking" in a dictionary you'll see a picture of yourself. You excel in (purposely) missing the forest in order to focus on the trees.

You compare .Net/SQL to VFP/SQL which is an erroneous comparison because (a) SQL connectivity is common to both tools and therefore not a unique asset to either, and (b) Walter has not dismissed SQL at all, ever.

He has made it clear that he advocates to combine SQL in a server role with DBF tables/cursors in a client role. Therefore the comparison is not .Net/SQL vs. VFP/DBF, as you try to make out, but rather .Net vs VFP. Which would then highlight the fact the VFP has its own DBMS in addition to being able to use server DBMS as well, like .Net.

Which then leads on to answer your question about what you can do in VFP that you cannot do in .Net: you can do DBMS stuff natively without resorting to a third party DBMS. And that, my friend, is an unarguable fact, although I am sure you will find some trees to obfuscate the issue.

If I thought for a minute that you actually wanted debate for the sake of mutually enhancing our knowledge of these matters I would debate the issue. But I have come to the conclusion that you are not interested in this objective but rather that you are primarily interested in making tabloid statements designed to create entertainment for your debating skills.

Later