>>>>>>>>>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 :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK Kevin,
>>>>>>>Found it.
>>>>>>>Thread #861648
>>>>>>>Cetin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, I'm aware of that one, but from your message I got the impression that you claimed to have proved my tests wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Kev
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmmm maybe my English is giving that idea. There I showed VFP was way faster than C# if coded correctly (within the context of those small test there).
>>>>
>>>>Oh, did you post your altered VFP code?
>>>>
>>>>Kev
>>>
>>>Not only code many messages with no reply.
>>
>>I refer to my last comment on this, the tests were worthless, hence why I let them die. It seems my latest attempt is going to go the same way due to so many people arguing against results they don't like to see.
>>
>>Kev
>
>"They don't like to see" ??? Why don't you think what they don't like to see is inefficient code and trying to correct it?

I meant the results of the tests, not the code. And whilst on that subject no-one has actually come up with a more efficient effort that has affected the results to swing VFP in favour, until then I don't see how my code is SO inefficient.

>
>PS: Even if you let them die, I spent time writing the code and thought at least deserved a single word.

And I spent the time writing it in the first place, and everyone had their say, it wasn't just "ignored".

The fact of the matter still remains, all I've seen is people failing to accept (or even acknowledge) that the OLE DB may actually be more efficient than direct-access in certain scenarios - it's the same old story - "Oh, it must be your in-efficient code"...funny how I don't have to revisit the C# code umpteen times.

Kev