From: "Joe Barr" 


Exactly what did I say that made you think that way?


On Thu, 15 May 2003 22:09:30 +0100, Paul Ranson wrote:

> I think you're talking out of your arse.
>
> If you need SQL Server (or any other proper database) then VFP won't do by
> itself. If you don't need one then VFP, VB, VC++, Access all provide
> solutions.
>
> There are obviously many other good reasons for not choosing VB.
>
> Paul
>
> "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.05.15.13.04.45.449737{at}austin.rr.com...
>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6869
>>
>> In the past few weeks, this story has appeared on The Register,
>> Slashdot, LinuxWorld and even the German publication Heise Online.
>> That's pretty amazing considering Microsoft has done its best the last
>> few years to keep Visual FoxPro, one of its most powerful development
>> tools, off the radar screen. Why would they do that? One simple reason:
>> money. An application developed in Visual FoxPro is much more economical
>> for a business, as Visual FoxPro has its own data handling and storage
>> capabilities. Contrast that with the much more popular tool Visual
>> Basic, which requires a separate data engine (usually Microsoft SQL
>> Server). Microsoft makes a lot more money selling licenses for SQL
>> Server, which are quite expensive, than they do when VFP applications
>> are distributed, requiring no additional license fees. So which solution
>> do you think Microsoft is going to promote? The fact that Visual FoxPro
>> has a rich set of development tools and a robust object-oriented
>> programming language doesn't concern them; they simply want the highest
>> license fees they can squeeze out of their customers.
>>
>> --
>>
>>

--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4