>3) Related to #2…a three-way discussion recently occurred between myself, JVP, and one other forum member. This member has made several posts regarding .NET technology that are either not correct, misleading, or misinformed. His posts have been called into question by multiple people who have produced .NET solutions. The consensus is that this member is not qualified to be making assertions on .NET.

I guess, you in fact a are Kevin. And described member should be me. This is really your consensus, not a general accepted consensus. The problem with these posts that they are really placed in a total wrong context.

My recent posts were not all disqualifying .NET and people promoting .NET here on the UT are consistently reading too much negative from my side. I've provided my view on what a good framework is for data - centric applications are, but all I recieve a cheap messages that I'm not qualified and I don't know what I'm talking about, rather than a technical discussion. BTW, I'm the one trying to provide technical examples here, but too often they're cheaply dismissed as 'you don't know what you're talking about'.

There are zero comments on my view why an application development platform should be database driven (not to be confused by data driven). The only usable response was from Neil T, talking about the new to develop MicroSoft Business FrameWork, which is exactly the thing I'm relating to.

True, I don't have done any production development on .NET, but my statements are founded. For example I've stated that:

In .NET you're encouraged to keep the amount of data in the .NET application to a minimum. We all know this is true because ADO.NET holds its data into memory. In VFP cursors can be flushed to disk.

All the other side can do, is yagging that you always should retrieve the data you need. I'm stumped by such unknowledgable response. I've never talked about not retrieving the data you need. I only said the statement above. That it escapes the .NET guys that retrieving data and holding data into an application are two total different things, is totally beyond me and ususally is a JVP tactic to shift the argument.

And if I respond in another thread, my honest opinion what the differences are without bashing .NET at all, then I get this heated responses qualifying as misleading. If I respond to the originator of the thread that you cannot simply USE a table and bind it to a grid, any hardcode VFP would understand what is ment with that statement. But then people thinking I'm saying something negative here, which was not the case here. I've explained what I ment here and for me the thing is done now.

And something that really bothers me is that while not having extensive experience I should not draw an opinion of .NET. This is totally beyond me. Have you ever programmed assembly? probably not. Are you able to make an informed statement about assemlby. Possibly yes. With .NET it is much the same. I've got a very good picture about ADO.NET and despite JVPs attempt suggesting that it supports SQL, you would have to search very well before you'll get someone more knowledgable on SQL, XBase and ADO.Net DML.

That said, you can identify its weak spot, and as I said, it is about data and its transparancy with remote data (For a more thourough analysis, see the message I wrote about it).

About the architectual miss in .NET (And I recon that VFP has to do a lot on this too), .NET is not running on database technology as it should. The only intelligent respond I've got is from Neil T here refering to a new project that possibly would be integrated into .NET. In stead I receive a very cheap message I don't know what I'm talking about. Sorry but that is TOO cheap, and only proves they don't know what they are talking about.

And this has been happening for the last two or three years now. Any technical example or challenge has been dismissed in this very cheap way ("You don't know what you are talking about"). And I could point out to a number of threads where it was proven that JVP did not know what he was talking about when it came to VFP. That said: "The pot is calling the kettle black".


>Despite the fact that this individual has acknowledged a lack of production experience, he continued to offer views regarding .NET that are misinformed and possibly negatively biased. John responded with specific technical feedback that was followed by “you don’t know what you’re talking about”, and “you have zero credibility”.

If there is (was) one person on this that has zero credibility then it was John. His continued personal attacks, not only direct to me, but to numerous other individuals here on the forum and the number of times he was missinformed and had to eat its crow, his continued efforts to rise his ego and push the first VB/ADO and later .NET/ADO.NET technology down our throats has left about zero credibility of the VFP community at large.

This also is fed, by the fact he contineus to bash VFP and promote .NET while he choosed another profession. WHAT THE HELL IS HE DOING UP HERE THEN? We are perfectly capable of drawing a good picture of .NET. uhhh no.... We will be way better able to draw a good picture of .NET without JVP as then those thread don't heat up to the boiling point and those discussion are held way more constuctively. And I must say that you (kevin) are doing a good job in that. Because of JVPs trolling we now (both sides) have grown an allergy to statments than can be explained negatively to both sides, which heats up the discussion again, barely without a reason.

>While these statements are definitely strong, they are essentially correct as they apply to the individual’s ability to discuss .NET with authority.

JVP admitted in a thread he is no .NET expert, so you'll have to ask the question in how much he can set himself as an authority. somthing beeing correct is only applicable in the context they are written. I won't argue that some of his statements are correct, but they often are misleading or either just plain incomplete or incorrect.

>Many view these types of JVP responses as ‘tactics’ – if they are, it is only because sometimes that is the only way to break through certain mindsets and deep prejudices.

So? If this accepted from a JVP side, then it is not accepted from the other side???

>Given that this is a technical forum, it’s interesting that a greater level of accountability seems to be placed on respondants of questionable technical statements than the originators. I can probably guess what the reactions would be if multiple messages were posted that incorrectly reported VFP’s capabilities.

As JVP did many times here. You don't have to guess, it is already here on the UT.

>Finally, I’m sorry to see that John will no longer be part of the UT.

I'm not that sorry, though I want to express that I don't have anything to do with his banishment here from the UT. If john is not arround then it becomes possible again to discuss .NET in a constuctive way again. And your role in this might be an important one, if you can resist the presure not to see every argument as an attack, but rather as an attempt to find the advantages and disadvantages (we all know there are disadvantages) between .NET and VFP development.

I could have started a flaming attack on your message here as I don't agree with much that has been said about me here, but I choose to let it die here. So lets make a new start here to constructively work out differences and provide a good reference to people who want to learn more about the difference between the two and it significant for different types of application developers.

Walter,