Migrate 2.6 app to VFP or VB?

[RoadRunnerOz]

We have a order processing program written in Fox 2.6 running over a network. I believe we need to port this to VB or VFP soon as we are discovering V2.6 programmers harder and harder to find.

"Assuming" the present options are VB V6 or VFP V6 which would be the better platform? Neither skill set do we have in house so we will have to hire a contractor.

There are about 120 tables in use. The largest being 250 meg and 300,000 records.

I remember reading once that VB is only good for <100,000 records. That being so, VFP is a better solution plus VFP shares code with V2.6.

TIA

Michael

Also this is in Australia. VB and VFP programmers are readily available so it makes no difference either way.


Michael Ouellette
mouellette@globalfreeway.com.au

 

[TomasDill]

VFP is better in any case, once you found really good programmer in VFP and made really good specifications. VB have a lot of limitations compare to VFP, specially, in OOP.

Vlad Grynchyshyn
vgryn@softserve.lviv.ua

http://www.softserve.lviv.ua

The professional level of programmer could be determined by level of stupidity of his/her bugs

 

[foxdev]

Since it is a data application, my vote goes to VFP. I'm biased, of course; but I'd give VB the nod in certain situations. This time, though, its what VFP does best.

Robert Bradley

http://www.foxdev.com/

 

[virgo]

I am in the act of doing the same thing. Some of the 2.6 files are several hundred Meg. Data files were originally in FP2.5, FPW2.6 and FPW2.6a.

Servers are PIII with lots of memory, NT4, with service packs through SP6.

I have done bits of it in both VB6 and VFP6. It works fine in both situations, but the VFP is much faster than the VP. VFP also generates less network traffic.

 

[RoadRunnerOz]

Thanks for all your help.
I posted this in the VB forum, and no response at all. VFP people seem to be more &quot;generous&quot; with their knowledge than VB, eh?

Michael Ouellette
mouellette@globalfreeway.com.au

 

[BlindPete]

I have to concur with you. I have nearly always recieved a usefull responce in this forum. People here do indeed share their knowledge.

Pete
blindpete@mail.com

What your mother told you is true! You will go blind! (from moonshine anyway)

 

[TomasDill]

They seems just do not like VFP, that is why no response on this topic ;-)

Vlad Grynchyshyn
vgryn@softserve.lviv.ua

http://www.softserve.lviv.ua

The professional level of programmer could be determined by level of stupidity of his/her bugs

 

[jonscott8]

Since this thread was brought back to the top of the stack, I figured I'd chime in with my 2 cent.

The largest being 250 meg and 300,000 records

FWIW, VFP can only handle tables up to 2 GB and 1 Billion records. Although your current situation indicates your table can hold 9.7 million more records, you have already exceeded 1/8 the maximum table size VFP allows. If you anticipate this table growing to 2+ GB within the next few years, I would recommend you look into SQL Server as the back-end database, with a VFP or VB front-end.

There is no reason to spend six months porting your 2.6 app to entirely VFP6, only to discover a year later that you will have to port your data to a larger database platform because VFP can not handle the data load.

I remember reading once that VB is only good for <100,000 records

Using DAO, although not entirely true, I can see this statement holding water. However, using ADO, this statement is entirely inacurrate. FWIW, the ADO data model was designed based on the VFP data model. Jon Hawkins
jonscott8@yahoo.com

The World Is Headed For Mutiny,
When All We Want Is Unity. - Creed