>I have POLITELY asked Alan Griver to mention the reasons. Reasons we need for several reasons. First, we have customers who want to know why. At the moment I do NOT have a single good argument. (Don't expect me to say to that customer: "MS no longer sees it as a strategic product". The resulting debate might become troublesome.) Second, I need to know before I can make a grounded strategic decision for my own company.
What do you need to understand exactly? What don't you get about "There will be no new version of Visual FoxPro?"
>Nowhere in the license agreement you accepted when you installed VFP (or any other product for that matter) does it say, Microsoft shall support VFP indefinitely and build new versions until there's not one developer left who wants it.
>
>Did I suggest ANYWHERE that they should? No. Although it is true that it is my personal opinion that they should have sought consensus with the users (developers and companies). But perhaps they HAVE sought contact and gotten 'permission', maybe with you and some others?! I'm not accusing here. Rather, I'm amazed about the speed and frequency that some here (now even you) start derogating and belittling me, the minute I dare to ask MS for the reasons.
>
>>Products get phased out. It happens all the time. And VFP didn't even really get phased out - the announcement just declares no new versions.
>>
>>Where do you draw the line? VFP developers are a dwindling breed. The VFP market is shrinking next to nothing. When should they quit? When you're the only one left standing? The developer base isn't tiny, but compared to other Microsoft technologies it is very, very small.
>>
>>You make it sound like somebody pulled a fast one on you. Like you have no choices. You have plenty of choices INCLUDING going on building VFP applications as you do now (I assume).
>
>Does a company have those choices if they have invested in the development of tens of complex applications that are meant to be in the market for many years to come and are actually the lifebelt of that company? Do you expect these companies to rewrite that all? Are they to blame for having put trust in MS when they chose for VFP as their main development tool years ago? Note: I'm not necessarilly talking about myself here.
No and neither do they have to. VFP isn't discontinued. It's not dead, it merely is no longer producing future enhancements. That's not the same thing...
Microsoft actually understands EXACTLY what kind of people they are dealing with and this is the reason why they are handling the phase out this particular way - slowly and over an extended period of time to give developers a chance to a) figure out whther they need to do something else or b) continue on with VFP for the 8 years and if they do have plenty of time to keep going. 8 years is a long period of time for an application, especially an existing application.
What more can you ask for in a phase out scenario?
Would I have liked to see VFP continue - absolutely. But it's not my call or your's. Microsoft owns the product and they decided that it's not a worthwhile use of their resources, which I don't agree with given the limited resources they did put up for it, but fully understand.
Think about this from the other end of things - what about Calvin, Aleksy and Robert and co who are single handedly keeping the product going - do you expect them to continue to be there? You think they *want* to keep doing this work of diminishing returns?
Take those core guys out of the group and then what are you left with? Do you really want that?
>Signs on the wall. I've heard that argument mny times before. Not all here are friends or acquaintances of Ken, Alan, Tsingauz, and others. I know/knew of all the signs, but every time the officials have denied those signs to betrue, I preferred official statements and I continue to prefer so.
Like I said in my previous message - you have to be very naive not to 'get it' especially in light of the discussion on this forum which you yourself instigated over the years.
>So, now that extreme luck is over. And I really wonder why a company stops with a product that is 'solid, mature and stable'. Are you really open here? Maturity may be the case this year, but won't be so anymore next year. And stable? I find bugs every week if not every day (just one hour ago the getdir('','','',64) function crashed vfp completely). There is enough work for the team left.
Because it costs money and resources and for Microsoft doesn't see fit to spend it on a product that is borderline for them and if anything is giving them a pain in the side. As I said I don't really agree with this sentiment, but I understand it. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter how you feel. It's Microsoft's call and they've made it.
