Personally, I very, very heavily doubt that the people that have been complaining here on the UT about .Net had anything to do with any changes.

From my own personal observation, which you could easily verify, a very large percentage of devlopers who frequent the UT and who fall into the highly qualified class of developers have moved onto .net. On top of that, my observation of the local Los Angeles market over the last month also shows a high percentage of those who have the knowledge and ability to learn another language have done so. And moved onto .net.

Another observation is that I've not talked to one single former VFP developer who is now doing .net, who regrets the move.

PF

>Perry,
>
>Apparently you chose to answer the part I said I'd leave for another day.
>
>How do you figure that LINQ would have seen the light of day if people didn't "complain about what was missing"?
>
>
>
>
>
>>My statements have absolutely nothing to do with the new features being added to .Net.
>>
>>And everything to do with going to Dice.com, gettting 13 hits for Foxpro and Los Angeles. One of those 13 is a C# position where VFP is a nice to have, the rest are QA positions.
>>
>>Doing the same query for C# lists several hundred positions.
>>
>>This also has to do with my observations from interviewing over the last month or so. The more qualified the candidate, the more likely they were to have already made the move to .Net. It's been extremely difficult to get someone who has the qualifications I'm looking for.
>>
>>PF
>>
>>>I couldn't pass this one by...
>>>
>>>You've concluded that, for you, the time is ripe for you to get into .NET. While this begs the question of where your previous comments on the subject were coming from, I'll leave that for another day.
>>>
>>>You say "... rather than complain about what they see as missing.". I wonder how this new and exciting stuff would be making its way into .NET if it weren't for complaining???
>>>After all, the standard argument from those who always pushed .NET here was that none of this stuff was needed because .NET was fully functional already and the major reason most VFP folks were holding back was because they were old fogeys who couldn't learn new tricks. That was going to bring about changes to .NET?????
>>>
>>>JohnK, whose opinions I have always respected, has said publically (paraphrasing) that he couldn't support pushing .NET to VFPers when their skill transfer would be next to nil, and these upcoming innovations should now reward those skills at least for VB.NET.
>>>
>>>When the time is ripe for me to switch from VFP I'll evaluate then as to where I will switch to. LINQ may well help me make the choice for .NET. I couldn't say that a week ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >I think this is still very true today. I think it would behoove VFP folks to learn rather then complain about what they see as missing.
>>>>
>>>>I have a friend who's doing .net today. He was telling his story in trying to hire within the last month or 2. At first they asked for a few years experience with .net, and good qualifications with oop (coding as well as uml). This didn't last too long as the candidates that appears were all asking for 6 figure salaries or close too.
>>>>
>>>>When they lowered their qualifications to 6 months of experience, and dropped the oop requirements, the candidates they were getting were ex VBA/ASP scriptor types. They couldn't answer basic questions about Data Sets, SQL Server, etc.
>>>>
>>>>So I think the market is still very ripe. I'm giving myself 6-9 months to ramp up so I can test the waters.
>>>>
>>>>PF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you are talkin to me about being a "scorned prophet" you'll never see me wear that hat. I think the things that I recommended people do a few years ago were right on target. I believe I said something like "you should learn .NET" now while the market is healthy. Do you see some flaw in my recommendation ?
>>>>>
>>>>>Or are you speaking of another "scorned prophet" ? ;>
>>>>>
>>>>>Rodman