Hi bonnie

>> As I found out the details it requires some adjustment in code to do this. So to one extend the statment is correct you "cannot subclass it visually". You´ll have to do it in code after which you can work on it visually again.
>
>Nope! Wrong!! To sub-class a form visually you simply select "Add Inherited Form" when you go to add a new form to your project and then pick from a list of base forms to inherit from. You don't have to do anything to the code.

Again I might be wrong, but you're only talking about basing a form on a class. You're not talking about SUBclassing forms or SUBclassing any other controls. As others here have pointed out this requires some coding.

>>I´m sure about ADO.NET despite some people trying to shoot holes in my statments in e.g. saying that you can do SQL on ADO records sets by a SELECT() method (hhhhmmm, who is incorrect here?).

>While this .Select() method is rather limited in what it can do, it *does* still perform a selection against the dataset to return a subset of data. Agreed, it's not "SQL" per-se. A DataView might be more "SQL-ish", but again it can't do JOINs and the like. Anyway, I wasn't arguing this point in my post.

It was not you to whom I was refering to.

>>>when you really shouldn't make such statements unless you have personal practical experience with it yourself.<<
>>
>>I beg to differ here. What you´re saying here is somewhat like CJ Date (Codd died last year) wrong when he says that SQL sucks while he never implemented a real world application.

>Getting off the topic a bit, aren't you?

No, I'm not getting off the topic. I'm discussing the ability to make a judgement without having what you call practical experience with it.

>... I'm not about to take any digs at Date & Codd. And don't tell me "what I am saying" ... I know what I'm saying. There are plenty of us who have implemented apps in .NET, who speak from experience, not anecdotal hearsay.

Ohh, and believe me I do listen. Those messages form the basis of my analysis. People with first hand experience, articles of .NET MVPS, etc.

>>>I will almost never reply to a post about something I haven't actually done.<<
>>
>>Then you´re restricted to reply to very low level details. In fact you´re saying that you cannot talk about many subjects like "why a you´d better build a house out of bricks than out of wood" because you never done it. Simular you cannot not talk about software and application design. You would not know if you should make a device driver in dbase or C++. In real life, you´re not capable off much. If you´re not able to draw conclusions on speficications (of cars, houses, electronic devices, etc) you´ll not make it in this society. We all are able to make abstract models of real life situations and compare them. I don´t see why this is different in software engineering.

>I didn't say I cannot talk about such subjects ... I merely said that I refrain from replying about subjects which I don't know about. Stop twisting my words.

I don't twist your words at all. Using your exact words you restrict yourself in replying to issues you have not actually done. What about things you know or have read? If someone is looking for a non-VFP great report writer and you heard good critics about crystal reports, won't you suggest crystal reports by saying something like "I've heard that crystal reports is a great report writer and integrates nicely with VFP" ? Now how is this much different to when I'm saying "I've heard you can't subclass visually in .NET" ? In fact I was fishing for an answer.

>I prefer to answer posts on an authoritative basis ... to give concrete answers to questions about .NET programming. Period. If someone wants to debate application design, well I *do* have a few ideas that I'll post, but I usually let others answer design questions ... and it's not because I don't know the topic.

That is entirely your choice. Others might have different choices.

>I resent your implication that I couldn't design my way out of a paper bag.

Where did I imply that? I was implying we all can draw conclusions on things we actually have not done or else we are not capable of much. In my rant a merely said that anyone with a bit of knowledge of a tools characteristics could know where a tool can be used for without having actually programmed in. That's all. We all know that .NET is missing a solid native (local) data solution. Whether you like it or not, this HAS implications. Implications that some .NET promoters ignore or do not wish to see.

>It's more along the lines of we tend to develop a "specialty" when answering posts and I stick to my "specialty" more or less. Specifically, it's threads like this that I usually avoid (and I guess I should have in this case too <g>).

Bonnie, I really don't understand why you're upset. I never, never intended to insult you in any way. I might have come accross a bit harsh when I felt attacked by you, but that is it. No hard feelings at all on my side. Now can you point out which parts of any of my messages did insult you in any way ?

Walter,