On 10/12/2017 9:20 PM, Kurt at VR-FX wrote:
Charlie - R U saying that YOU have no knowledge of VFP??
:-)
Judge for yourself of course. But I do not propagate incorrect claims about how VFP "copies down the whole table across the network whenever you open it" and things like that.
And I certainly do not remember Stephen (Bad Steve?) to have ever been a "big VFP guy". As I recall he generally put down VFP and praised the latest Microsoft "best practice" of the moment (which sometimes turned out to be a "bad practice").
Anyway, my irritation in this particular instance was his "contribution" to the topic was basically trying to "scare off" VFP'ers from the project: "doomed to fail..." Which, of course, is utter nonsense. Making sure you have someone that has a deep knowledge of the source language means the real operational requirements can be identified: why the system was designed the way it was. Lack of clear requirements is, by far, the primary reason projects fail. Also, does he think a VFP'er cannot learn C#? ROFL. The best way to learn a new language is to actually work in it: and working in it while stepping through a previous code set that you know well makes things much easier. Heck, I'd have looked into it except I have no interest in Microsoft development tools any more. I'll spend my time with Javascript, Python, some R, maybe Java.
But whatever. I don't really care that he hangs around the list (like I have any say-so about that anyway). Maybe others remember the things he's done on the list differently than I do. For me, I saw just another case of trying to back-hand insult VFP'ers - maybe it wasn't intentional <shrug>. But since he's obviously not interested in VFP any more, why post on topics specifically pertaining to VFP? My little quip in response was just trying to point that out.
-Charlie