Pertti,

Excellent point-of-view. What can I say more? period.

>Martin (and Samuel):
>
>This concept seems to hold a lot of promise, as did the concept when the Russians tried to repeat the Americans' moonwalk in the 60's. They found out soon enought that there were just way too many moving parts in trying to get a man to the moon, and decided to do other worthwhile things in the space instead :-) Likewise, I am concerned that rewriting the entire VFP from scratch in .NET is an undertaking of moonwalk proportions.
>
>Of course, the difference between what eTechnologia is trying to do vs. what the Russians tried to do is that instead of having reluctant satellites (Eastern Block countries) ordered to help them, eTechnologia could well end up with a bunch of enthusiastic and highly skilled VFP volunteers that jump in willingly and energetically. After all, Linux was originally started by a lone Finn, who was messing around with a simple public domain Unix system, and look at it now...
>
>I imagine that VFP's demise has a lot of people thinking seriously what the replacement system might be, and specifically how likely is it that the replacement will be:
>
>a) solid AND compatible
>b) likely a long-lived system
>c) a system that can not be yanked away single-handedly by one single entity (e.g., Microsoft)
>
>**Solid** proof-of-concept compiler with 20-30% compatibility would probably entice many people to join the effort and alleviate some of "Concern A". If, in the end, there was such a system WITH 95-100% compatibility with VFP developers' existing code, many of us would jump at the chance to acquire one. Anything less than 95% compatibility, I'm sure, would not make it seem like a good investment in time and effort for people moving their code away from VFP.
>
>Making this project open-source, or at least make the full source code available to people who buy it, would alleviate "Concerns B and C"
>
>But, in the end, selecting a replacement platform is a huge decision, and if there is nothing on the horizon *soon* with great promise and solid proof-of-concept, people will surely start migrating mostly to .NET, with some people going to open source (Python etc.) or other options (WinDev etc.). The last option might hold a lot of promise (new systems can be built from scratch without architecture concerns about backward compatibility) as well as risk (we all know that Microsoft will be around for a long, long time, which may or may not be the case with many of the other proprietary system providers.)
>
>Furthermore, and this maybe a very important point, NEW programmers are likely to go the .NET and Java route, for better or for worse, because it is a well-known and well-traveled path, and because career sites are full of job offers for them. (Would you suggest to your son or daughter that they pursue a career with .NET, Java or VFP.NET?)
>
>Time is of the essence here, I believe, because after MS's announcement many VFP shops are surely starting to firm their transition plans, if they have not done so already, and once they choose a tool and start down the road with it, they probably won't switch very easily to anything else, no matter how much promise it seems to hold.
>
>
>Pertti
>
>
>>Hi, Samuel.
>>
>>>It is good to proceed with caution. We know this is a legitimate concern and we think the next monthly updates of the compiler will show more and more of the real value we can deliver.
>>>
>>>We truly believe in what we are doing, and right know We believe there is not better alternative to take the .NET Route that trying our compiler. Any other path would mean a full rewrite of your app.
>>
>>Thanks a lot for jumping it. As you have seen, guys here are really counting on you.
>>
>>Best luck, and count on my support if I can be of any help.