John,

>>>Inheritance??? You would have to clairfy this one. I have found zero issues with how .NET implements inheritance. If anything, .NET is better because if I ever want to change the parent class, I can do it with a simple code change.
>>Since when you cannot do this in code with VFP?

>Not with a visual class...

You can with code just as easy as you can do in .NET with code. With visual classes it requires a USE and a REPLACE command, that's all.

>Not beeing an expert, but what if you want to inherit complex forms? As I was told there is no way of visual inheritance. If you've got a complex form, you've got to define it in code, Yuck...

>Thats bunk...you have visual inheritance in .NET...

Prove it.... AFAIK, you cannot define a form class visually and subclass it visually just like in VFP.

>.NETs RAD capabilities in this field are not the most appriciated from what I've heard.

>Maybe you should investigate yourself instead of going off what you were told. Of course, when evaluating .NET, you will have an easier time if you knowledge base is not inextricably bound to VFP - which is a problem many developers have. i.e., many developers cannot think outside their chosen box.

Maybe you should provide prove. From all that I hear, this is the case, only having your argument that its not. Given the history of your lies, you better prove it.

Walter,