Migrate foxpro 2.6 app to VB or VFP

[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.

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

**Posted in VB and VFP forums ( I hope this is allowed???)**

TIA



Michael Ouellette
mouellette@globalfreeway.com.au

 

[MikeLacey]

Michael,

Given that there are sufficient vfp programmers around it would seem like an obvious choice -- vfp...

But, a couple of things...(and skip to last paragraph if you're too busy to read the whole thing)

I'm surprised you say that there are vfp programmers around it must be that there are more of them down-under than in the UK. You hear so little about vfp (except on tek-tips it has to be said) that I find it difficult to say -- go for it -- to be honest..

VB and tables > 100,000 rows. That's probably a fair comment if you mean VB and an Access database though it depends very much on the speed of the individual PC's on your network.

How many concurrent users? I've had data-corruption troubles with more than 20 or so concurrent users with VB and Access.

Have you thought about VB and SQL-Server or Oracle? Either of these (given a suitably sized server) would give adequate performance and much improved reliability.

You can't get away from it though, this sounds like a significant application and one you're running your business on. Moving to VB and some database (Access or a server based DB) will be a non-trivial project. Moving to VFP is also non-trivial, it would be easy to underestimate the complexity and cost of what might appear to be an upgrade.

In your place I would include an off-the-shelf package high in my options list; it's likely that there will be something out there, reasonably priced, that will meet your needs and take away the cost (and risk) of maintaining such a standard application in-house.

Regards,

Mike
michael.j.lacey@ntlworld.com