>>I knew it would blow-up, that always happens, I accept that. It always boils down to the same thing, .Net seems to threaten people merely by the mentioning of it.
>>
>>Oh well....
>>
>>Kev
>>
>
>Kevin you are being really unfair. imo Cetin certainly does not feel threatened by these tests. He has already stated that he is himself programming in .Net and C#.

I actually wasn't referring to Cetin, just some people in general who seem to pounce uneccessarily whenever performance between VFP & .Net arise.

>Cetin is not questioning whether it can or cannot be done in .Net. He is also not questioning which tool *might* be faster than the other. What he is saying is that (a) the descrepencies are too small (b) the datasets are too small to be significant (c) the code is not the most efficient, and various other such concerns.

a & b I agree with, in fact my latest tests reflect this. (c) hasn't actually been proved yet, I've tried many suggestions on the efficiency and I will continue, so far (c) has turned into (a).

>In sum you are presenting some results and drawing a conclusion from them. However the method and implementation of the tests are themselves questionable and hence the conclusions drawn are questionable, and that is what Cetin is arguing.
>
>Its the same problem as your previous posts in comparing VFP and .Net speed. You made some tests and showed .Net "faster". But Cetin, and others, clearly showed that the coding could be changed to show VFP faster. And so which is it? VFP or .Net? Then the whole lot was tossed as "worthless". Fine. But here we are again with tests that are simply not conclusive without a more rigorous testing environment and code optimization.

I actually agree with that, my original thread that started this was to simply put it to Terry that one our .Net apps faired very well in compairison to it's VFP counter-part, I was merely suggesting don't judge it till you try.

>fwiw, I couldnt care less myself as the whole .Net / VFP debate is stupid. But you did bring this topic up with your "tests" and hence you must be debated with by those other members who wish to do so. To say someone is threatened simply because they argue the validity of your tests is ridiculous.

I wasn't referring to Cetin in the first place, I value his opinions, but that doesn't mean I've got to agree with the way this is being handled or approached.

As I said, I'm taking up peoples suggestions on the efficiency of the code, we'll soon know how important it proves.

Kev