>Peter,
>
>I have to disagree here: to me the retiring of VFP by MS can not be elevated to a discussion about capitalist/socialist dichotomy. I mean, really!

Pertti, thanks for replying. I wish more people here did this. The issue deserves some attention. Not because I'm right and want approval and praise, but because a discussion can make more clear whether or not, or to what degree, it is a factor.

I certainly don't want to be the black/white thinker in this case. A dichotomy is not the appropriate interval here. But it may well be a norms and values issue.

Likely, a majority of the North Americans regard it as a logical right of MS to do what they've done in this case, whereas e.g. a majority of South Americans regard it as another arrogant act of a capitalistic company. Truth is IMO somewhere in between, but truth is also that MS is situated in North America and so are its employees, esp. those who make such decisions. These people think it's logical that they are not blamed for running the business as they see fit. They will call it the right of the capitalist and if that's a negative label, they'll call it a liberal right. Afterall, they're not producers of medicine and the like, they would say, as you did (see below). And consequently they'll even blame those who dare to criticize the decision, in order to defend these norms and values.

In a dynamic, full speed society like the U.S., it may well be that 'some computer language' is not perceived as a product that bears critical relevance for the society. But in poorer countries it may well be the opposite conclusion: People, real people, have invested precious resources in developing applications with with that language, and now, all of a sudden, they are forced to seek income with another programming language. That may be threatening for their personal situation and MSs decision may be experienced as irresponsible and unsocial.

I think it may all boil down to a lack of mutual agreement as to when even a capitalistic company should take social reponsibility. Or perhaps we should focus on the question whether or not a programming language bears critical relevance for a group of people and companies in a society. Although it's not a medicine, killing such a product can cause unemployment and poverty, and that is not good for a society.


>When demand dips below a certain, unsustainable level, MS doesn't have any more responsibility to keep making VFP than the Russians had to keep making Moskvitches (the legendary Russian rust magnet of a car that was eventually "discontinued").
>
>If we were talking about AIDS drugs for Africa or something of that sort, yeah, sure the medicine manufacturers can be expected to have social responsibility, and PLENTY of it. But when it comes to hard market research numbers and touch decisions on something like VFP technology, communists, socialists, social democrats and capitalists all eventually come to the same conclusion -- if it doesn't make sense, dump it!
>
>Be that as it may, I personally want to see VFP continue, and if MS doesn't do it, it looks like someone else will. The market size that doesn't make sense to a huge corporation like Microsoft may make perfect sense to some small company in Central America...
>
>
>Pertti
>
>
>
>>>>It seems to be the culture. I've somehow noticed that here people tend to find excuses for corporate behavior with ease, and give up in advance on any cause that they think may depend on a corporate decision.
>>
>>>That might be part of it. But there's also the part that people have just come to accept that working in tech requires a certain mindset about what tools you use. That they might disappear, or you might get asked to work with another tool tomorrow, so be prepared.
>>>
>>>I've had this discussion with the group I work with in the last week, not VFP people thou. Of maybe 6 people, 3 were vocal. They said they would have no problem picking up another development tool tomorrow if they had to.
>>
>>It may well be that, after a while, when attention of U.S. developers is finally drawn, a substantial portion of their names will be on the list too. But it may indeed also be the case that it is a cultural phenonemon. Or rather a difference in political ideology. Perhaps it's, ultimately, socialism versus capitalism.
>>
>>In one of my posts here, last week, I have said that, IMO, MS has a social responsibility towards its customers. I'm not saying here that MS shows no such signs at all. But I doubt whether they have shown enough of it. There has been no consultation of customers (developers and companies). Or perhaps they have had some talks, but with which customers was that? And what were the strategic plans of those customers (and consequently their advices)?
>>
>>I recall it was mentioned by me in a post to Rick Strahl. In the reply he admitted that he understood the decision, but that he didn't think it was a wise decision. So, perhaps his company has been consulted (let's speculate on this), but in that case the advice has not saved VFP.
>>
>>Perhaps MS has conducted a survey among a representative number of customers (vfp-developers and companies that depend on vfp applications), but we've never heard about such a survey.
>>
>>Perhaps it is a North-American cultural, or capitalistic, thing to 'fully understand' and 'not to question in any way' a corporation's decision if it is made public as the result of a 'strategy change'.
>>
>>In a socialist or socialist-democratic society people want/need/request that the arguments/reasons are made public. And they reserve the right to disagree and request, or even demand, a rollback of that strategy change.
>>
>>Now, where do I live, what ideology do I adhere? This is a question that is not only relevant for me, but for everyone involved, no matter where we live.
>>
>>One more thing: MS does not restrict its sales to the U.S.! Need I say more?