John,

>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 is nothing you cannot do in assembly you cannot do in another language. However does this mean we should all poke arround in assembly? The same applies to .NET. Writing complex data driven applications is very much harder in .NEt compared to VFP, for the reasons I outlined.

>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 defend VFP as it is a tool that has certain advantages in creating data centric solutions. You might see another real world situations, but I see that my real world solutions are very difficult to translate to .NET in its current state.

>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.

Sure, but when will we see it? You're not talking about the .NET of today.

>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.

Please hold you immmature additude boy. If you disagree with me, fine, this is you opinion. You're drawing conclusions from my words you cannot draw. I did not say anything about VFPs marketshare not shrinking. Please point me out where I did. I've been on the technical path exclusively. And no, I don't burry my head at all. I've already stated that I see a bright future for .NET. I did say however that .NET is immature (on a number of aspects). I provided the technical arguments for that. I do not ignore .NET at all.

My arguments are all based upon the statement that .NET is mature and does handle data as well as VFP etc. This is not true and this is a demonstratable fact.

As a result, people who want to build database applications, might be better of to implement them in VFP if they are already working in VFP.

Walter,







>
>
>>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,