>>The difference I see is COBOL was developed by not by a software vendor
>> but by the user community. There is a formal standard for COBOL that is >>largely driven by the user community, not the software vendor. If you
>>don't want to be whipsawed by a software vendor then choose something
>>like COBOL, JAVA, Python, etc. and accept the compromises you just
>>bought in to.

>Actually, there is a formal, standardized COBOL, not from the community,
>but from a standards organization. The efforts to standardize xBase
>fell flat several years ago.

The formal standards organization is what I was referring to. The committee receives input from the community along with vendors. No one vendor can dictate the direction and there is considerable pressure to maintain backwards compatiblity -- self inflicted intertia for better or worse. A half a century later and COBOL is still in widespread use so all in all it might be "for the better."

>Personally, I'm keeping my eye on Python; especially since I see it
>works with IBM's AS400 (oops, now the "iSeries"), along with Linux,
>> Unix, Windows, MAC, and more.

>Don't forget Microsoft's IronPython implementation.

I know, but the IronPython site at www.ironpython.com appears to have been inactive since July 2004. Meanwhile the Python community at www.python.org is very active. Also Ed Leafe and Paul McNett (both VFP developers) have been making steady progress with their Dabo project at dabodev.com.

Scott