My "rants" are not unfounded, And nowhere have I said that .net is better than vfp. I said that anything you can do in VFP can be done in .nET also. There are a lot of things in .Net that would be nice to see in VFP and vice versa. But, to bury your head in the sand and defend VFP with no clue as to real world situations, you do yourself a disfavor.

I'm open to new ideas and new technologies and the world WILL be moving to .Net in wholesale herds. VFP will die a straggling, struggling death as its features are stripped and combined in new technologies. Its the way of the world. Its survival of the fittest. If you look at job opportunities for .net vs vfp with a clear mental state with your rose-colored glasses removed, you will see that the handwriting is on the wall. Bury your head, I don't care, but your useless spouting just makes you the laughing stock of the UT.



>John,
>
>I don't think anyone here is going to say that .NET is a useless platform. It is not. Can you create great applications in .NET? Sure. Is it going to be the future of modern application development? Probably yes.
>
>However, folks who are saying it has no disadvantage over VFP, and everything can be done as easy in .NET as in VFP, are putting their head into the sand. It is not. VFPs' RAD capabilities and data centric solutions currently stand on a much higher level.
>
>Is that to say you can't develop data applications? Certainly not. However, don't expect you can write them as easy, maintainable, efficients as with VFP, esspecially when things get complex.
>
>.NET certainly could learn a lot from VFP (Not my words, but YAGs).
>
>That said, please stop your unfounded rants in defending .NET, your view is certainly not Microsofts' .NET data manager (YAG).
>
>Walter,