Honestly, we looked into it. Too much of VFP IP has been embedded in other products over the years (someone mentioned some like ADO, SQL Server, etc.). So that won't work. I also think that VFP (and Fox 2.6) will still be powering a lot of apps for years. Windows Vista still runs Visicalc. I suspect that it will retain compatibility for a long time. <g>

Honestly, with the extensibility in VFP you can add a ton of capabilities. I've seen replacement menu designers, the class browser, support for Office 2007, Windows Desktop Search, the RSS feed store, GDI+, enhancements to projects, database rules, etc., all written using that model. I think that's where VFP continues to grow.

yag

>Yes, I do see your point about the core language. This would be next to impossible to manage on a volunteer -basis, no doubt about it. But what about another company that could take it on since MS doesn't seem to want it any longer? Is the 18 year old core (or other parts of the core for that matter) still a most valuable trade secret? Having ANY other option but **no support at all** would certainly keep Microsoft's reputation on the sunnier side among VFP developers. If the VFP factory is entirely shuttered, there will be a lot of anger and resentment out there and people will be jumping into open source development environments in droves -- the thinking being that open source can not be yanked away without any recourse. After the VB6 debacle and now VFP, I am starting to feel quite attracted to, say, Python myself.
>
>***
>
>I also see your point about the Express -versions. Free is free, can't argue with that. You do need a lot more hardware to run those than VFP, but you need the same hardware to run the latest Windows, too, so that's a zero game...
>
>So I guess that leaves the huge investment in existing VFP apps out there. Contrary to what some pundits argue, VFP conversions to VB or C# are not at all easy or trivial. Don't take my word -- ask Les Pinter (he wrote an editorial about this very topic in the most recent UT matazine). Ask anybody. Heck, ask ME. A few years back I went to Malaysia to help a company convert their apps from VFP to .NET. They gave up on that effort in a hurry. It was simply too painful to work with .NET after working with VFP (even after putting another framework on top of the .NET framework). It took WEEKS to do in .NET what they could do in VFP in DAYS. Part of that was not being familiar with .NET, sure, but a big part of it was the (relatively) dismal data handling capabilities in .NET.
>
>My point being that VFP-NET conversions are not likely to happen much -- instead people will have to **painfully** re-write their (perfectly working) applications AGAIN, from scratch. I predict that unless Windows or some new hardware developments kill the VFP runtime, VFP apps will STILL be running around the world a few decades from, just like Foxpro DOS and UNIX apps still are. The only reason Foxpro/Mac apps are still not running is that Mac OS X killed Foxpro on that platform.
>
>So, again, I am suggesting that MS hand VFP over to someone else for a reasonable amount of money and an airtight nondisclosure about the protected core code.
>
>
>Pertti
>
>
>>I talk about the open source suggestion on my blog (http://blogs.msdn.com/yag). Short answer is that the core has IP that can't be released, and it's 18 year old C and C++ code - the community doesn't typically have people to work with that. Think back to your old source.
>>
>>One thing I do disagree with is cost. VB Express, C# Express, and C++ Express are free. So is SQL Server Express. The express SKUs are geared towards developing multiuser desktop apps. Just an FYI.
>>
>>yag
>>
>>>Bring back Dave Fulton! He'd know what to do and how with all this.
>>>
>>>With this action MS is leaving thousands and thousands of developers in the lurch. And, I may add, a HUGE number of them in developing countries where even a single license purchase of VFP is a big but somehow still a manageable decision. So buying something like VS 2005 and the associated ecosystem to make it productive and palatable is a HUGE, if not impossible decision for those folks. I bet the majority of them are going to leave MS for Python or some such open source product that, while not as good and polished as VFP, at least can't be yanked away by some big corporation (I know, I know, MS is not exactly "yanking" it away, but rather eventually leaving it to languish until a new Windows version or multicore processor kills part or all of it.) I suppose that sooner or later even the most hard-headed of us will learn to stay away from the VB6's and the VFP's of the MS world, and I for one think that this decision hastens the trend considerably.
>>>
>>>And now the "social justice rant": VFP is kind like the hand truck of data management and application development -- it doesn't require much infrastucture, it is affordable, it is easy to learn and maneouver, and it is a **perfect fit** for the types of loads it was designed to carry. For example, You wouldn't dream of telling people in, say, Kenya's countryside that you, as a single supplier of hand trucks, are not going to provide spare parts for their hand trucks any more. Rather, now they are going to have to buy your Mac truck to transport their 10 small baskets of vegetables to the market every day. And, oh by the way, they will also have to learn how to drive the darn thing, which will take them out of the marketplace for quite a long, unsustainable while.
>>>
>>>If this is a solid business decision, which it may well be, the **charitable** thing to do would be to simply hand the keys to the handtruck factory to somebody else (Dave? Consortium?), walk away and let them figure out a business and/or a social justice case for it. Just sayin'...
>>>
>>>
>>>Alan, you have been a great proponent of Foxpro over the years, in and out of Microsoft. Therefore, I'm wondering if maybe just maybe you could consider doing one last push for the community here, since you have Microsoft's ear (or at least some corner of it). And I'm not suggesting that you go begging the Mothership to keep the orphan, but rather letting it loose to fleurish or perish on its own merits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Pertti
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hey there - Just wanted to say that I'm reading all these threads. Every time I'm going to reply to one, I find that someone else has already responded in the way I would <g>. I did post a new blog entry at http://blogs.msdn.com/yag/archive/2007/03/14/thoughts-and-comments.aspx which covers major issues I've been reading about here, in blogs, in email and in conversations.
>>>>
>>>>yag