John,

>Your reply reminds me of the scene from "Good Morning Vietnam" where the LT comes in and says something like: "We need the drp to the co of cic by 1500. So do it A S A P" and robin Williams replys: "Well the co of cic is awol or mia with the vp of the qa ..."

>You love throwing around big terms and acronyms in the belief it lends credence to your arguments. The bottom line is still: You have no practical experience with .Net yet you constantly disparage those that do and question their credibility when they correct your mis-statements, partial truths and out-and-out fabrications.

I'm not aware I did throw in big terms here. The main message I'm telling here that looking from a practical side is way too limited. There is nothing worse than only looking from a practical side without knowing how this relates on a higher abstractional view.

If only practical matters then the soldiers in vietnam did lose the war, and not the generals who made the tactical decisions.

Look, it is no secret I do not have any significant experience in .NET, yet dismissing my input because of this fact only shows you wanting to make quick and dirty points and really don't show any understanding of what makes a good development platform a good development platform for a particular purpose. An for the record name one misstatement I made here on the forum, where I did not tell upfront I was not sure.

All I've seen here from the .NET guys here is
- a very easy dismiss of VFPs data centric language which really is an advantage in writing data centric applications with lots of meta data.
- a very easy dismiss of VFPs rich language which enables you to do things that requires more coding in .NET
- a very easy dismiss of the local database engine used for data munging capabilities and storing and processing meta data.
- not even one comment on my rant why a modern database application devleopment tool itself should run on database technology.
- a very easy dismiss about .NETs shortcommings in RAD (e.g. data binding) (Of course this is not relevant to .NET guys now, until VS 2005 comes out and then beeing one of the big improvements, sigh....)
- Not even any admitment about these shortcommings even though it has been publically known that the .NET team is looking at how to implement the nice features found in VFP.


So what can I conclude? All I can conclude is that the .NET guys are very sensitive to arguments that might show a disadvantage of .NET opposed to VFP. Why ???? Is it so hard to accept that VFP might have a place where it is justified?

I'm not the only one here telling this story. There are some members up here having real life experience from the early days of .NET, actually have written applications in .NET and are able to identify its place. I'm far more sensitive to what those guys have to say about the issue than members from the JVP camp (who really has a record of making miss statements and half truths).

Walter,