Ted Roche wrote: > I hope not. The more work I do outside the Fox world, the more dated I > see some of FoxPro's designs.
On 8/11/07, Paul Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted, I'd be very interested if you were to elaborate on that a little. No, I think I'd like to withdraw the comment. VFP's historical inheritance of many ways of doing things really is the right way (although it would be nice to do it on Linux or OS X, too!) and there are the tools in VFP to do things "the right way" (for each definition of that!). So it isn't that FoxPro's design is dated. Though the 2 Gb limit is a disappointment. The DBC constructs can be difficult. FoxPro being locked into the Windows OS is a frustration for me. The monkey business with workarea zero. The awkward compromise of complex structures to flat tables in SCXes and the underdocumented binary fields... The reality is that every other language has design compromises, runs into similar problems with simultaneous update questions, and so forth. So, FoxPro isn't really that dated. That wasn't what I was trying to express. I'll have to think some more on what it was I was trying to say... -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
