In another recent post here (Re: North Americans - waste 60 seconds of your time Thread #1210969 Message #1211598) I bring to the attention the fact that the VFP language is not approved by an independent committee and that there are no (longer) competitors that implement this language in a development product also. I guess what's currently happening demonstrates that it is important to stick to a language that is popular AND that is public domain AND that is implemented in development products by MORE competitors. And it is likely even more important for developers and companies in 'developing' countries.

VB.NET is not such a product. I assume the same is true for C#.NET. I know they compile to IL, but that's another issue. It is MS that determines which functions make it to the language and which don't. As a consequence, whenever MS decides to stop (see also J#), its users are in trouble, because there's no other same-procedures ship to jump on.

You're talking about evolution. I think that idiosyncratic programming languages will be abandoned and the surviving languages will be publicly/comittee agreed upon constructs. And VFP is idiosyncratic. Decision makers in companies do not want to be hijacked by MS. Probably that's the REAL reason for its diminishing.

The only 'life jacket' might be an ultimate attempt to extract those portions of the language that are good enough for approval by a committee and a request to IT corporations to create development tools that implement this language.



>Peter,
>
>"idealistically" I do see your point and the European point of view as well, having been born and raised in Finland, one of those Northern European Social Democracies myself. I grew up with the society's and industry's wide acceptance and approval of such things as free health care for all; minimum 6-month maternity leaves for new mothers (and fathers, too, if they so choose) WITH a firm job-back guarantee; free and high quality public education, including Universities; etc. etc.. Big corporations and small companies understood and (for the most part) shared the society's values and priorities, paid the extra bills for all of this "social responsibility", and generally thrived in spite of the added financial burden. Nokia, for example, didn't bolt to some off-shore tax havens, for the most part it stayed put and participated in paying the bills for the greater good (AND taking advantage of the local highly educated, healthy, happy and well adjusted workforce).
>
>But this is very different kind of social responsibility than maintaining an old program with diminishing returns. I don't think (even) the Finns would see that as a desirable activity or social goal. The self proclaimed "workers' paradise proletarian dictatorships", working with the idea of "to each according to their needs, from each according to their capabilities" (Karl Marx), eventually just couldn't ignore the tough realities of hard financial equations. They had to come to terms with what makes economic sense, sooner or later, and start acting accordingly.
>
>There is an evolution going on in software just as it is in the nature. The way I see this whole thing from the ecological and evolutional perspective is like this: Because of its size, Microsoft needs a huge volume to cover their massive overhead. Units that don't reach their minimum target figures are rather unceremoniously tossed aside as dead weight. Along come some small companies that can totally thrive on this dead weight, pick it up and try to carve themselves a niche that Microsoft has now left empty. If the dead weight is worth keeping, people will buy it and support the companies that provide it. If it is truly dead weight because, for example, of changed environment, everyone will eventually abandon the carcass and move on.
>
>So, Microsoft dropping VFP doesn't necessarily mean widespread poverty in South America -- after all, there are options already, and undoubtedly many more coming before we are any were near the final round with VFP. If there is a niche for specifically something like VFP, somebody will come along and fill it.
>
>Having said all that (and then some), I do understand where you are coming from, and I truly appreciate and share your concern for software houses and programmers in developing countries.
>
>Pertti
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>