FoxPro vs MS Access

Hi,

I have done a lot of programming with MS Access. I have
been told that some of what I have done in Access is
easier in FoxPro, and that FoxPro can do things Access
can't.

I am wondering in any of you could point me to any good
articles, white papers, or other tech writings that give
a good comparison of FoxPro vs Access for someone well
aquainted with Access.

Thank-you for your help,
Bob Noll

Cindy
Mon Jan 05 19:40:14 CST 2004

In news: 03e101c3d3f2$5889d440$a501280a@phx.gbl,
Bob Noll <robertDeleteThis@nollgroup.com> wrote:
> I have done a lot of programming with MS Access. I have
> been told that some of what I have done in Access is
> easier in FoxPro, and that FoxPro can do things Access
> can't.
>
> I am wondering in any of you could point me to any good
> articles, white papers, or other tech writings that give
> a good comparison of FoxPro vs Access for someone well
> aquainted with Access.

Hi Bob,

Most of the articles you'll read will compare file sizes, numbers of users,
etc., and won't tell you what's easier in VFP. Visual FoxPro has an
extremely powerful "Command Window" (much more powerful than what's in
VS.Net) where you can execute nearly every kind of command, interactively,
as well as open programs, run them, etc. It has full Intellisense.

I find it incredibly useful, for example, when developing Office automation
code. I can instantiate Excel or Word in the Command window, make Excel
visible, and then try out various commands (Intellisense helps!!!) until I
find out what works. Then I can paste the lines of code into my program. The
automation code will look much like what you're used to in Access.

Another example is remote access to SQL Server. I can instantiate a
connection to SQL Server and then send queries through the Command window
until I get the data I want, again saving the code that works into my
(permanent) program.

Finally, I have to mention VFP's table operations. Opening a table and
making some changes is as simple as:

*!* CREATE TABLE Emps (EmpID I, EmpName C(15))
USE Emps SHARED IN 0 && Opens table in free work area
REPLACE ALL EmpName WITH "Frederick" ;
FOR LEFT(EmpName, 4) = "Fred"
USE && Closes table
*!* You can also use an SQL UPDATE statement

I'm sure others will chime in with their favorite things about VFP.

--
Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
cindy.winegarden@mvps.org www.cindywinegarden.com

Rush
Mon Jan 05 19:56:05 CST 2004


"Cindy Winegarden" <cindy.winegarden@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OkBSyY$0DHA.2872@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> Finally, I have to mention VFP's table operations. Opening a table and
> making some changes is as simple as:
>
> *!* CREATE TABLE Emps (EmpID I, EmpName C(15))
> USE Emps SHARED IN 0 && Opens table in free work area
> REPLACE ALL EmpName WITH "Frederick" ;
> FOR LEFT(EmpName, 4) = "Fred"
> USE && Closes table
> *!* You can also use an SQL UPDATE statement

OH NO-O-O-O-o-o-o

You just replaced all the customers names instead of the employees' names,
since the Customers table was opened in the current work area . . . <sorry
about that>

- Rush

Rush
Mon Jan 05 19:59:13 CST 2004

Cindy's answer is probably more up-to-date than the canonical answer, which
is to reference a somewhat stale white paper:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168549

I would encourage you to post your reaction (as an experienced Access
programmer) to this newsgroup.

- Rush

"Bob Noll" <robertDeleteThis@nollgroup.com> wrote in message
news:03e101c3d3f2$5889d440$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I have done a lot of programming with MS Access. I have
> been told that some of what I have done in Access is
> easier in FoxPro, and that FoxPro can do things Access
> can't.
>
> I am wondering in any of you could point me to any good
> articles, white papers, or other tech writings that give
> a good comparison of FoxPro vs Access for someone well
> aquainted with Access.
>
> Thank-you for your help,
> Bob Noll

Brett
Mon Jan 05 20:40:53 CST 2004

"Bob Noll" <robertDeleteThis@nollgroup.com> wrote:

>I have done a lot of programming with MS Access. I have
>been told that some of what I have done in Access is
>easier in FoxPro, and that FoxPro can do things Access
>can't.

Foxpro is vastly more powerful than Access, no doubt.

However, I personally wouldn't be starting with any language that's
going to be totally irrelevant in a few years.

Cindy
Mon Jan 05 20:42:50 CST 2004

In news: eK7G2e$0DHA.2324@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
Rush Strong <rush.strong]@[verizon.net> wrote:
>> *!* CREATE TABLE Emps (EmpID I, EmpName C(15))
>> USE Emps SHARED IN 0 && Opens table in free work area
>> REPLACE ALL EmpName WITH "Frederick" ;
>> FOR LEFT(EmpName, 4) = "Fred"
>> USE && Closes table
>> *!* You can also use an SQL UPDATE statement
>
> OH NO-O-O-O-o-o-o
>
> You just replaced all the customers names instead of the employees'
> names, since the Customers table was opened in the current work area
> . . . <sorry about that>

Hi Rush,

Others may not get the joke - how easy it is to REPLACE in the wrong
"place." <g>

To avoid this problem you can be more specific about the table and field
names:

REPLACE ALL Emps.EmpName WITH "Frederick" ;
FOR LEFT(Emps.EmpName, 4) = "Fred" ;
IN Emps

--
Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
cindy.winegarden@mvps.org www.cindywinegarden.com

Roger
Mon Jan 05 21:31:56 CST 2004

Brett O'Callaghan <brettocallaghan@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> However, I personally wouldn't be starting with any language that's
> going to be totally irrelevant in a few years.

I recall many people saying the same thing ...<cough>...
10 years ago. :-)
--
Roger Ansell
Adelaide, Australia

My real email address is ransell at senet dot com dot au

Brett
Mon Jan 05 22:09:38 CST 2004

"Roger Ansell" <notmyreal@emailaddress.com> wrote:

>Brett O'Callaghan <brettocallaghan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>> However, I personally wouldn't be starting with any language that's
>> going to be totally irrelevant in a few years.
>I recall many people saying the same thing ...<cough>...
>10 years ago. :-)

I'll take your word for that. However, just because people were
partially wrong (Foxpro ain't exactly mainstream these days as it is)
10 years ago has no bearing on what's going to happen in the future.
And IMHO if Foxpro doesn't go .net and Longhorn capable, it'll be
totally irrelevant in few years.

Yes, you'll still be able to do really good stuff in it, but it's
going to be increasingly marginalised.

Fred
Mon Jan 05 22:15:10 CST 2004

"Roger Ansell" <notmyreal@emailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:btda76$619th$1@ID-212432.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Brett O'Callaghan <brettocallaghan@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > However, I personally wouldn't be starting with any language that's
> > going to be totally irrelevant in a few years.
>
> I recall many people saying the same thing ...<cough>...
> 10 years ago. :-)

11 now. Fox is now into it's second decade of "death" proclamations. ;)

Fred
Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP

Roger
Tue Jan 06 06:51:59 CST 2004

Brett O'Callaghan <brettocallaghan@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'll take your word for that. However, just because people were
> partially wrong (Foxpro ain't exactly mainstream these days as it is)
> 10 years ago has no bearing on what's going to happen in the future.
> And IMHO if Foxpro doesn't go .net and Longhorn capable, it'll be
> totally irrelevant in few years.
>
> Yes, you'll still be able to do really good stuff in it, but it's
> going to be increasingly marginalised.

FoxPro has always been marginalised (by Microsoft) for people
who are looking for development/programming jobs.
If you're looking for employment, then I'll concede that having VFP
expertise high on your CV isn't likely to get you a shed-load of
job interviews.
As an independent developer, VFP is going to be at the top of my
database application development toolkit for many years to come.

As for .Net, the VFP community voted out of that scenario.

Anway, back to Bob Noll's original question.
You've slagged FoxPro ... fine ... so what's your recommendation?

-Roger
--
Roger Ansell
Adelaide, Australia

My real email address is ransell at senet dot com dot au

Leemi
Tue Jan 06 10:37:45 CST 2004

Hi Bob:

Take a look and see if this article and web link helps you:

168549 ACC97: Choosing the Appropriate Database White Paper Available in
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168549

(This information is a little old, but it is still relevant.)

This link offers a good overview of the current product offerings:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6329-5056993.html

I hope this helps.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Sincerely,
Microsoft FoxPro Technical Support
Lee Mitchell

*-- VFP8 HAS ARRIVED!! --*
Read about all the new features of VFP8 here:
http://www.universalthread.com/VisualFoxPro/News/VFP8Release.asp
Purchase VFP8 here:
http://shop.microsoft.com/Referral/Productinfo.asp?siteID=11518

Keep an eye on the product lifecycle for Visual FoxPro here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?id=fh;[ln];lifeprodv
- VFP5 Mainstream Support retired June 30th, 2003
- VFP6 Mainstream Support retires Sept. 30th, 2003


> I have done a lot of programming with MS Access. I have
> been told that some of what I have done in Access is
> easier in FoxPro, and that FoxPro can do things Access
> can't.
>
> I am wondering in any of you could point me to any good
> articles, white papers, or other tech writings that give
> a good comparison of FoxPro vs Access for someone well
> aquainted with Access.

Roger
Tue Jan 06 10:49:31 CST 2004

Fred Taylor <ftaylor@mvps.org!REMOVE> wrote:

>> I recall many people saying the same thing ...<cough>...
>> 10 years ago. :-)
>
> 11 now. Fox is now into it's second decade of "death" proclamations.
> ;)

Thanks Fred ... tempus fugit ;-)

--
Roger Ansell
Adelaide, Australia

My real email address is ransell at senet dot com dot au

Brett
Tue Jan 06 15:59:04 CST 2004

"Roger Ansell" <notmyreal@emailaddress.com> wrote:

>Brett O'Callaghan <brettocallaghan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, you'll still be able to do really good stuff in it, but it's
>> going to be increasingly marginalised.

>As an independent developer, VFP is going to be at the top of my
>database application development toolkit for many years to come.

Great! I fully concede that if Microsoft killed VFP tomorrow, then
people could still do good apps for probably another ten years. It'll
just get harder and harder to work with the future Windows.

>As for .Net, the VFP community voted out of that scenario.

They did? Wow, what a terrible, short-sighted decision. The
community actually had a say in it? Or it was Microsoft deciding it
wasn't worth the investment to go VFP.Net?

>Anway, back to Bob Noll's original question.
>You've slagged FoxPro ... fine ... so what's your recommendation?

I really don't think saying it like I see it is "slagging off" Foxpro.
For what it is, it's a fine, capable language. I'm disappointed it's
not going to be part of the future in any meaningful sense. Man,
VFP.Net - the good bits of VFP with the dotnet framework would
absolutely kick arse!

Holger
Wed Jan 07 02:26:25 CST 2004

Hi,

> >As for .Net, the VFP community voted out of that scenario.
>
> They did? Wow, what a terrible, short-sighted decision. The
> community actually had a say in it? Or it was Microsoft deciding it
> wasn't worth the investment to go VFP.Net?

yes, they did !
The main reason for that decision was, that bringing VFP to .NET means
somehow reducing the capabilities of VFP to the limits of the other .NET
languages.

--
Holger Vorberg
MS Visual FoxPro MVP, Germany

Cindy
Wed Jan 07 11:58:34 CST 2004

In news: %23S4AOhP1DHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
Holger Vorberg <eimer@die-vorbergs.de> wrote:
>>> As for .Net, the VFP community voted out of that scenario.
>>
>> They did? Wow, what a terrible, short-sighted decision. The
>> community actually had a say in it? Or it was Microsoft deciding it
>> wasn't worth the investment to go VFP.Net?

Not at all. The Visual FoxPro team at Microsoft asked the VFP community for
their suggestions. The VFP team has always been extremely responsive to the
wishes of the community.

> yes, they did !
> The main reason for that decision was, that bringing VFP to .NET means
> somehow reducing the capabilities of VFP to the limits of the other
> .NET languages.

To go further, it would mean taking the data engine out of VFP; then you'd
be left with something that was essentially the same as VB.NET - a RAD tool
for developing applications.

--
Cindy Winegarden MCSD, Microsoft Visual FoxPro MVP
cindy.winegarden@mvps.org www.cindywinegarden.com