I spoke with the person who originally told me about your "VFP is dead" comments and he confirmed that they came at two Whilfests in a row. He was quite irritated about it, as I was when he first told me. Another person told me "Kevin was definitely urging people to move off of VFP for .NET as a good career move." Urging people? That's a bias in my view. And look at your listing in the marketing material for "Advisor Live" in Las Vegas in June. It's all .NET and you make one mention of VFP and that's only to talk about converting VFP to .NET. I looked at a few other VFP gurus, all of whom list VFP front and center and not from a "convert off it" viewpoint. And look at your reply below - you're glad to list many things about .NET and mostly nothing about VFP. You say .NET has some shortcomings in data access, as if that were just a small problem. It's all about data, but you just gloss over it. I'd say you are evangelizing for .NET in the community and you know it has not been appreciated. VFP has gotten a bum rap over the years and it's not appreciated when "one of our own" helps the doomsayers. I'm going to just drop out of this thread, I hope, because I've said what I had to say. Your actions speak louder than your words and you or your faithful aren't going to change my opinion (and, quite frankly, I realize that opinion won't change your behavior, either).


>All,
>
>First of all, my intent was not to start a firestorm. I posted this message in the VFP forum because this seminar is specifically for VFP Developers--no one else--unlike other training I do. Also, we are offering a discount to premier UT members so this is the obvious place to post this announcement.
>
>As I've stated previously on this forum, I STILL think VFP is a great tool. Although there are things .NET does better than Fox, there are things Fox does better than .NET. In the seminar I talk about where it makes sense to use a mix of .NET and VFP.
>
>Also, I have NEVER said the words "FoxPro is dead". In fact, we are getting ready to release a new version of MM VFP--I wouldn't bother if I thought Fox was dead.
>
>What I HAVE told developers is:
>
>"If you have an existing VFP application that you are happy with there's no need to move it in .NET just for the sake of rewriting it. However, if you are doing a complete rewrite of an application for other reasons, or if you are writing a brand new application, I would strongly consider .NET."
>
>I have also said:
>
>"The future of software development at Microsoft is .NET".
>
>This is not just for political or marketing reasons, but for technological reasons such as:
>
>

• Strong typing - All modern programming languages are strongly typed because it allows you to find the majority of your bugs at compile time rather than run time. This is critical in today's market. You can create stable applications (read: less bugs) more quickly in strongly typed languages than weakly typed languages. If you haven't tried it, I recommend checking it out--it is phenomenal.
  >
  >
• A Single Learning Curve - Once you climb the .NET learning curve, you can use what you've learned to create Windows Applications, Web Applications, Smart Device Applications, and with SQL Server 2005, stored procedures.
  >
  >
• Advanced object-orientation - VFP has implementation inheritance, VB6 has interface inheritance, but .NET languages have both. The lack of either of these is a real shortcoming (although it's better to have implementation inheritance). Other key features are overloaded methods, static/shared members, abstract classes, operator overloading, and the ability to create your own custom events. If you haven't had the opportunity to understand and use these features, I highly recommend checking them out. They are additional tools that help create more stable, maintainable applications.
  >
  >
• Visual Studio - The current VS .NET 2003 is a great tool. I've had many Java developers who have taken my training classes tell me that Visual Studio is better by far than most Java tools they have used. Visual Studio 2005 takes this a quantum leap further with great features such as a built-in class designer, collaborative developer tools, source control, object test bench, unit testing, enforcement of coding standards, and so on.
  >
  >
• Cross-language Compatibility without COM! - If you have ever created COM components in Fox, you know it's a real pain in the neck--especially when it comes to debugging. In contrast, all .NET languages compile to the same Intermediate Language which allows components written in different .NET languages to communicate without the hassles of Interop.

>
>All of this said, there are definitely things the .NET teams can learn from VFP, especially when it comes to data access. As .NET MVPs and people who are STILL fans of VFP, Markus Egger, Rick Strahl, Cathi Gero, Bonnie Berent, and I talk to members of the .NET teams about putting some of the great things about VFP into .NET--and they're listening! Former and current members of the Fox team at Microsoft are also doing the same thing.
>
>Finally, the seminar is not intended to make attendees .NET gurus although we dive pretty deeply into the languages and object-orientation. It's intended to help people get their arms around the .NET technologies I mentioned above so they can make informed decisions about where best to use .NET and/or VFP, and how to get the two worlds to coexist peacefully.
>
>Regards,