<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 7/2/2010 9:44 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C2EC03F.2070802@san-dc.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 07/02/2010 08:19 PM, bob gailer wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C2EAC3C.2000507@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 7/2/2010 5:56 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C2E8AA7.4000109@dcsoftware.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
[snip]</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4C2E8AA7.4000109@dcsoftware.com" type="cite">Visual
FoxPro
...
is
very similar to Access<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
I differ. Access and FoxPro are very different. Yes they both use
tables, relationships, indexes and SQL. Yes they both have visual
designers for forms and reports. Yes they both are programmable.<br>
<br>
But the differences are much more dramatic than the commonalities. I
have developed in both. I find it painful to work in one while desiring
a feature that exists only in the other.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Dare you say which? ;^)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
FoxPro <br>
- more complete and easy-to-use object orientation<br>
- classes don't need to be in separate modules<br>
- classes and controls can be subclassed<br>
- controls can be encapsulated in container classes<br>
- classes have constructor methods - so possible to pass parameters<br>
- forms do not contain any "magic" events<br>
- method editor is a simple text editor <br>
- no "magic" events<br>
- no separate application window for programming<br>
- each table, database container, program, index is a separate file<br>
- there is a command window and lots of interactively useful commands<br>
- I like being able to run SQL and data manipulation statements
directly.<br>
- error handling is much better<br>
- there are no misleading or confusing error messages that result from
compilation problems<br>
- SQL is integrated into the language<br>
- nice set of workarea commands (scan, replace, ....)<br>
- writing programs in FoxPro much easier than in VBA<br>
- no need to separate application from data (that is automatic).<br>
- no confusion about when to use . vs !<br>
<br>
Access:<br>
- query and report designers are much much better<br>
- the VFP report designer is incredibly limited and hard to work with
by comparison.<br>
- debugger does not require separate window<br>
- subforms<br>
- recordset controls on forms<br>
- table designer has more features<br>
- there is no database container or need for one.<br>
- relationships are integrated - visually created and available in
query designer.<br>
<br>
That is not an exhaustive list - and it is my opinion. I'd rather not
get into any religious arguments - but I'd be glad to clarify.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Bob Gailer
919-636-4239
Chapel Hill NC</pre>
</body>
</html>