Craig,

John did carefully write his words and said "most IT managers....". I would expect that if your firm deals with many large corps, some of you were surprised that one actually requested VFP. Corporations converting Foxpro/VFP apps to other tools was what caused the decline in usage of VFP. I don't see anything that will ever change that.

PF


>I have to agree with you that customers are much more Tech-Savy than in years gone by and dealing with IT departments is pretty likely on medium-large projects. However, the comment about "laugh you out of their office" regarding VFP is simply erroneous. I have a client (NDA bars me from disclosing their name) that is one of the world's largest mutual fund companies (SEC filings of well over 300 billion), and they specifically requested VFP, and it is one of just a few developer tools approved by their IT department. In the end, it's all about what tool is best suited for the job. I doubt that I've persuaded you, but that's ok. I just didn't want future readers of this thread to see your post and believe it to be true, when it's not.
>
>>>So, having said all this, can we finally put this to rest here on
>>>the UT?
>>>
>>
>>So becuase you have had your say, everyone else should now accept your words as truth and nod in agreement and then just go away?
>>
>>I don't know what kinds of clients you support, but our clients (major banks with IT departments and some of the largest mutual fund companies in the world), all care about the software the base code is written in. They worry about the effect of installing extra software or runtime files on their servers. We have to jump through hoops simply to get stored procedures altered. Ask most IT managers in America about installing foxpro on their servers and they'd probably laugh you out of their office or try finding ISP's who allow you to install VFP runtimes on their servers.
>>
>>That said, it is spurious to argue that people don't care what the base is written in.