Hi J.

I probably need to point out why I made the posts over on the other forum. My point was that certain sessions at VBITS are mis-labeled because they talk about OOP in VB. My issue was that when it comes to OO - at least with regard to how VFP treats things and what is generally regarded as pre-requisities to be an OO language - VB fell short. It was not meant to pin VFP against VB. Rather, VFP was used as a point of reference to show folks how an OO langauge works.

If you have seen some of my posts here, you should know that I am a VB fan. As far as Windows DNA architecture, COM, COM+, scaleability, etc, VB is in better shape than VFP. The way VB handles inheritance - via interface inheritance - stinks compared to how VFP handles things. But, how VB handles things is consistient with how COM works. COM+ will support inheritance. It is a matter of time to see how the VB IDE will support this and whether it will be comparible to VFP. It's sort of like how VFP handles data. Yes, VFP has a nice feature with native data access. However, if that is the only way you know how to access data, you are terribly off the beaten path of how the rest of the world works. I hope this is not a foreshadowing of VFP's implementation of OO and how it will relate to future versions of VS.

If you want to know where things are going, keep tabs on COM/COM+ and DNA.