>That's like going to Microsoft for the Java spec...(!)

What's your point???

>What was my comment about marketing?...

The fact that VB has 80% of the RAD Tools marketing is not marketing hype - its fact.


>Or if they wrote them properly in the first place...

They work in VB not VFP - and your argument is that the ActiveX controls don't work properly???

Since you are using the strict enforcement premise to defend your argument, would you be so kind as to elaborate on what facet of the ActiveX Control Specification VFP's is enforcing that VB is not. It seems a lot of folks like to throw that line of reasoning around - to defend why so many ActiveX Controls do not work correctly in VFP - without actually knowing what the real facts are. I am not saying you are in this crowd. But, I would like you to clarify your position.

>Like ActiveX?...

Once again, do you know what the ActiveX Specification that VFP is enforcing that VB is not?? It would news to me because I to this day - have not heard definitively what the intrisic issues were - as I really have not cared. All I know is what I see - controls work in VB - it is a crapshoot in VFP.

>So I should use VB 'cause people don't create proper ActiveX contols?...

As a client/server front-end - probably yes. If you want to be sure your controls will work - then yes.

Tell me, if you delivered an app to a client in which a control works in VB -but not correctly in VFP - and your front end ws in VFP - what would you tell your client: Gee, I am reall sorry about this - you see - VFP is doing the right thing and VB is doing the wrong thing - eventhough it works in VB and it does not work in VFP." Cmon man... you know and I know this would never fly.

>
>Yes, there is, *but not from the perspective of the client product*...

Have you ever delivered a C/S application? What exactly does that mean: not from the perspective of the cient product? Did you mean to say: Not from the perspective of the end-user???

Paul, my comments were from the standpoint of using the correct tool. Remote views suck - its that simple. The level of control you get with SPT is far superior to remote views. Remote views are really just a wrapper for SPT anyway. For one thing, views are not objects. Don't get me started.....

>
>Nor am I saying that VFP is better than VB, only that VFB *would be* if it got as much attention from Microsoft as VB does...

Sure. But don't ever expect VFP to get as much marketing money. The market is not there.