Using SQL or .NET is not a cure all for bad development. The example you describe reflects badly on poor development and not VFP. The developers who developed that are probably more likely to develop worse apps in .NET if they haven't learned anything better while using vfp...
>I am simply stating what I have heard and seen. A typical scenario:
>
>- a department, for whatever reason, does not enlist IT's help, and selects a software package for their department.
>- The package has been written in VFP, storing in DBF's
>- The IT shop typically has no VFP programmers on staff. They develop their own apps in VB / Java / whatever their standard is. Probably storing data in SQL or Oracle
>- At some point in time, IT is brought into the picture. Possible reasons:
> 1) There were some problems. Possibly caused by bad indexes/dbfs and the vendor was unable/unwilling to fix the problem
> 2) The system became corrupted and no one was backing up. IT is brought in to add this system to their backup routine
> 3) The vendor has disappeared
>
>Once again, I am only stating what I have seen and heard. Not my personal beliefs. This is from my experience in the corporate world.
>
>In many cases, the cause is that the vendor is too small to support such a large client. Unfortunately, this reflects poorly on VFP. I witnessed this at the last company I worked at. Because my boss had no experience with SQL, he refused to look at any data store other then VFP. The app automated Excel. I'm not sure of the reason, but it required Excel 95 for this purpose. It still does today. So a major corporation, as part of their standard desktop setup, must load Excel 95 along with their standard Office version for anyone using this app. The app is used thru out the world, in some 3rd world countries. So there are many crashes, leading to data corruption.
>
>All this reflects on VFP. In '98 I started hearing from recruiters that all thier VFP contracts were for help in supporting an app until it was rewritten in whatever the new language was.
>
>Much like all the people I've seen who made numerous posts thru the years, who are no longer here, the places I've seen switch from VFP are not coming back.
>
>PF
>
>
>
>
>
>>If IT auditors believe that using VFP means storing data in dbfs, then they are ignorant.
>>
>>This ignorance is widespread and has become a party line in some quarters. Even some people who should know better seem to buy into it (nudge nudge) ;-)
>>
>>The point I tried to make was that when an IT vendor comes along with a flash new product, we respond. We reward the vendor for unloading untried-and-untested new stuff onto our customers and ourselves. This contrasts with other professions and makes us look more like Plumbers who will happily install the shower that was shown on TV last night if that is the customer's instruction. Well, accepting instructions like that in IT can be done by people half a world away at a third of the price. That's my point.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>j.R