>>Jeff ---
>>
>>I'm gonna make this simple....if MS does not make VFP a core requirement of the MCSD track then you are hurt careerwise if you stick with it....sad but true. It has nothing to do with personal success or failure. And, I would venture to say, that I have been very, very successful in my career track and personal track and I believe that you were way out of line to state that.
>>
>
>John,
>You are dead-on in my book. I head a team of 12 programmers. We aren't consultants, we write in-house and commercial (for sale) apps. We all agree that VFP is the most rapid, most scalable solution for writing applications. The problem is, that speed does NOTHING for the personal careers of my people. If Microsoft does not include VFP as a core requirement satisfying exam, I will have no choice but to abandon VFP in my shop. In today's job market, you don't keep employees long unless you are helping them grow. We fully fund our employees MCSD certification. How can I justify keeping them in a tool that MS doesn't consider a core requirement of being an MCSD?
>
>No, we don't want to learn VB, but we don't want to be un-employable after this gig either.
>
>Marty Smith

I agree completely with Craig. I'm just now starting to look at training for VB, not because I want to switch over, but because I feel, at least for me, it is/will be a career requirement to at least have a good working knowledge of it. Plus it'll help me produce better arguments why I should use VFP for a particular app ;-)

"How can I justify keeping them in a tool that MS doesn't consider a core requirement of being an MCSD?" The apps your team is developing should be justification enough, at least from a user standpoint.

Cheers