John,

>It is clear you don't have a clue when you cast stones toward .NET... You have ZERO first-hand knowledge of how .NET works.

Absolutely true. I don´t have first hand knowledge of how .NET works. It is all the in papers. The writings are on the wall. Look at the technical documents and read the messages here on the UT and you will know. I´ve been collecting .NET data (especially ADO.NET) for two years now without learning the framework itself. That data is the basis of having a global overview of a tool capabilities. You seem to believe you can draw that opinion from learning all the details. OH, you are wrong....

You appearantly live in a world where you think you have to do things yourself into detials before you can make a global overview of a tools characteristics (see my message to bonnie). I don´t have to build a train and an airplane to know which one will take me to timboektoe in the fastest way. I don´t have to build a F1 car and a beetle to know which one will the consume the most fuel.

You also seem to believe that CODD and DATE did extensive application design before saying that SQL sucks.

>Just to save you the trouble, one of the beefs people with have .NET is that you can't subclass visually - things like buttons, etc. It is a process that has to be done in code.

So that statement of mine was true. You were wrong.

>Some people see it as a show-stopper - I for one do not since IMO - deep class hierarchies for visual items is indicative of poor design. Going beyond 1 level is - or at least should be - a rarity. Instead, developers should rely on patterns, aggregation, and composition.

I would go until lets say 2 or at most 3 levels, mainly because you visual inheritance, not functional. I agree with function intheritance you seldom would go beyond one.

Walter,