>>>My plans are to continue developing using the "Fox". What's hard for me to believe, is the response to YAG's announcement. Many of us have known for years that sooner or later M$ was going to kill the "Fox". This has not affected our decision to continue using it in the past. Why should it affect us now.
>>
>>Sorry, but this is not true. Many of us have FEARED that MS was going to kill the fox, but HOPED that this wouldn't happen. And they have given prevalence to their hope. And that's why they continued with the fox.
>>
>>Had we KNOWN at that time that development would stop in 2007, most of us would have abandoned the fox at that time.
>
>I guess I'm speaking in a historical perspective. I've been in computer technology since 1959. This has a lot to do with how I think....what was new in electronics and computers 20 years ago is now in a museum. Same for programming languages.

Some here have mentioned the inevitable decline of Clipper, QuickSilver, dBase and the like, and regard the current fate of the fox as similar, an inevitable event. I'm of opinion that this is an incorrect conclusion. The original dBase language was cloned and the clones did the job better. The same developers abandoned usage of dBase and chose for Clipper and FoxBase. Ultimately they chose for the successor of FoxBase. The shift out in the market was caused by 'us', rather than by the producers. We could tell our customers that we would gonna recompile the dBase code in FoxBase. This time there is no such conversion path. We will have to completely rewrite things.

Also, in 1959 and many decades thereafter, computer technology was immature. Mistakes were made and many times new conventions had to be decided on. For sake of growing more mature, we had to abandon old technologies to give way to new technologies. We now live in 2007 and the industry has grown more mature. Viable, mature technologies have emerged. VFP (while not the ultimate devtool, I admit) is one of them, in my eyes. I can understand a company that decides to kill a product if it comes to the inevitable conclusion that the product sucks in essential ways and is not easy to repair and prepare for the future. So, I asked YAG for the real reasons, but he has not yet taken the time to give the answers.

(Just today I read about a Stanford professor who plans to reinvent the internet, because the current one will remain troublesome. In that case he can give many valid reasons, and he has done so.)