Let's be clear here....this is not about VFP vs any other tool. Rather, the issue is about whether the VFP OLE-DB Provider + .NET - or anything else COULD be faster/more efficient than native fox. The consensus here seems to agree that the possibility indeed exists - and perhaps - it may even be far more likely than not.

I have zero doubts that with enough tweaking - in this one example, Fox could be made to perform as well or better than .NET + VFP OLE DB Provider.


>>>
>>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.
>>
>>Did not look like anything significant to me. It appears to be some sequential processing that would not be a good fit for pure sql. Based on what I saw, there are likely, a lot of variants on how it could be done - but that is not the point.
>>
>>The basic point is this...like most things - Fox no longer enjoys an absolute advantage in areas where it used to enjoy a presumptive advantage. It all goes to why there are less and less compelling reasons to use Fox.
>>
>>It is nothing more than an isolated incident to make a point - nothing more and nothing less.
>
>OK I looked and it was doing in VFP, .NET way. Comparing VFPOLEDB to native access basically it's worthless as a VFP vs C# case. Yes there are a lot of variants on how it could be done.
>
>"The basic point is this...like most things - Fox no longer enjoys an absolute advantage in areas where it used to enjoy a presumptive advantage. It all goes to why there are less and less compelling reasons to use Fox."
>
>Fox still dominates the data processing power. Whenever when I work with C# on data intensive code I see that (and believe it or not I don't do things there the foxpro way). That gap might close in the future too and .NET might conquer in all areas (and that doesn't bother me really, I'm free to choose my development tools). I think I've already said it a number of times if data is taken out of the discussion VFP even not comparable to .NET (well I find it unnecessary to compare any language\tool).
>However you're right there are less and less compelling reasons to use fox. That's the point I agree with you. The point I don't agree is that you've burried VFP before its death and we might never know if it'd really die or strike back with a better one. Suggesting ppl to learn and use .NET is something I share but you do it in a stinking manner and that irritates ppl. Maybe you should instead guide ppl in technical ways between the two.
>Cetin