Cetin

>Did you take sometime to read the code ? It's kind of code written poorly such giving a feel written on purpose to claim VFP is underperforming :)
>It's always possible to slow down any language with code like this.
>Really funny.

I've had 3 or 4 people question the efficiency of my code, I tried all of their suggestions, guess what? The difference was hardly worth mentioning.

>It's also interesting that my msgs showing Kevin that VFP is much much faster than C# on dealing with data has gone never replied.

I wasn't aware of any messages proving the speed differences in data-access, maybe I've totally forgotten, but I'm sure those messages didn't prove one was faster than the other, prove me wrong as my memory is not brilliant :-)

>PS: I code in C# too but it's simply ridiculous trying to take down VFP with poor test codes. C# is not comparable to VFP but comparison arena is never the data where VFP keeps C# in dust (at least today). Period.

Again, I don't think my test code was poor, it was using rushmore, the SCATTER/INSERT command was hardly performance-hitting, maybe if you could provide me efficient code I'll give it a try and we'll look at the results.

I wasn't intending on turning this into a VFP/.Net battle, I was merely stating that we distributed a real application, in the real world, with real data, and it ran as quickly and efficiently as it's VFP counter-part - why is that so difficult for people to accept?

Kev