I didn't react earlier on this one because I somehow missed it. Surprisingly, others didn't react either. So, why's that? They missed it also? Each and everyone? Or was there another reason, were there other reasons?

Only some postulations as to why people didn't react:
1) We skip large texts and/or only react to small posts.
2) We all got impressed and decided to postpone replying, first having to overthink it all.
3) No one felt a need, or dared, to defend the own, opposing pov.
4) No one dared to publicly support this analysis.
5) The analysis is not only polarizing, but also intelligent and 'new' and therefore it is risky to step in.

To me, the central theme you're bringing to our attention here is "Move on". You have noticed that certain people here put pressure on others to move on. Variations are: "You'll not get any further answers, so move on", "The answers won't change a thing, so move on", "What's there to gain from any further discussion, so move on", "Even BBQing is a more sensible way to spend your time, so move on", "It has always been the way things go in the IT, so, again, move on", and so on.

And you, esp. you of all people (I just did read your resume, you appear to be someone who has moved on many, many times) dare to challenge those certain people. And your argumentation is fundamentally different from what others have used. You dare to criticize the 'progressive' idea that 'moving on' is always better than 'sticking to', which is almost like 'getting behind', becoming legacy.

As I postulated, your argumentation may actually be too intelligent and new. It may be regarded as risky to speak up against you. The opponent knows in advance that he can't successfully use some of his traditional arguments, like "this is how it has always been, it's called progress". Or, "I myself have moved on and on and on, and that's how it works, and you can learn that from me, believe me".

Even for those who feel supported, those who have been, or still are, somewhat reluctant to quickly move on, it is an argumentation that must be digested first. It is, or was, difficult for them too, I presume, to say "I fully agree, and thank you for this fine analysis". It's intriguing me why this is.

To be clear about it: I very much appreciated this contribution.


>Tracy and all ...
>
>First I would like to thank Tracy for her defense of those who express their upset. We have as much right to be bothered by their decision (and not smile like some kind of 1984 brain washed sycophant) when our favorite tools are taken away.
>
>There are too many in these threads who want to chop on those who are not happy about what MSFT is dong and use the expression "move on!". The impression I get from those "movers on" is that they may well have already decided that the solution was to move from their little VFP world to the "bigger world" of .NET (my impression of their view, not mine.) They are then upset with others who don't see it their way. (How dare we be unhappy with the direction that MSFT wants them to march.)
>
>Having programmed in FORTRAN II, IV 77, PL/1 with Adabas and DB2, FOCUS, Oricle, and yada (oh an old mainframe guy)
>
>Programmed an Imsi 8008 and 8080 in Intel 8008 and 8080 assembler, upgraded to a Z80, TRS-80 with assembler, FORTRAN, Pascal, C, an IBM PC (original) in 8088 assemblers, C, Pascal, Prolog, Clips, Modula, (oh a PC guy) and of course C++, Fox 2.0, 2.5 for DOS, 2.6 for windows, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and so on.
>
>BSD Unix with C, (ooh a computer guy) SUN, IBM RISC computers, Cray, what do you want.... moving on, over, through and back again is my life.
>
>I have sold myself to employers before I started my own company (employers like Shell Oil and NASA) that my forte is going into an environment where no one else in the organization has gone (or even the bleeding edge of the technology), carving out a methodology, codifying it, teaching it to others and moving on to the next bleeding edge. It is kind of fun.
>
>And in all of that, with CASE tools out the ears, neat new stuff left and right, I haven't found a better RAD tool than VFP with a nice framework like VPM or VMF. etc. and perhaps xCase. Nowhere. None. Nothing anywhere near as good for good total package RAD.
>
>And yeah, I have some .NET and C#, VB, and so on. It has a lot of nice things to be said for it, and needs a lot of work too!
>
>Move on? Well it is more like loose one of the nicest tools in the big Matco tool box. If you don't know what a Matco tool box is, go to a nice, big fancy garage or machine shop and look for a tool box about 8' wide and 6' high that is over three feet deep. New cost about $10,000 for the EMPTY box. And then fill it with EXPENSIVE tools so the whole thing is worth $60,000 or more. Yeah. Computer tool set like that. You gather a tool set like that if you are a nut who gets his jollies on the bleeding edge doing stuff that you can't get help on, since you are the future help guru... And in the central place in that set is nice VFP. It isn't bleeding edge, but it sure was plesant to use to pay the bills!
>
>And then someone says, nope, you can't use that much longer. You may find it the best for the environment you are currently working in but move on!
>
>Move on?
>
>You mean just use the other stuff you have but find isn't the best for the jobs you are working on. Oh. OK I guess that is move on.
>
>I feel like the guy that someone cut off some of your fingers... OK. I am missing some fingers and it hurt. But to smile and thank the nice man with the axe?
>
>Move on!
>
>You have 8 other finger left! And, please keep your hands where the axe man can swing at them again! (Right, sure!) Here, graft on these new fingers the axe man has a RIGHT to cut off TOO!
>
>Move on! (in the MSFT direction! Follow the Windows Flag!)
>
>Move on!
>
>Of course I am one of those nasty guys that once upon a time in the late 1970s developed an engineering design oo tool set to use with PL/1 (written in PL/1). In it the code on the could be stored in one database table set and the object in another and the main program could dynamically pull the compiled object code (methods we call them now) and the code specific data (properties we call them now) from the DB and use them to read other (engineering) data in the database tables and do calculations and then store it all back in other tables. Stupid idea. Wouldn't want anything like that!
>
>I wonder why I liked VFP and its storing of stuff in tables? Crazy idea!
>
>So, rolling my own is not all that impossible. If I liked those fingers I got whacked off, I and friends can make a Luke Skywalker set to replace them, I suppose. So we can move on that way too. But ya know, I don't have to like it! (As Tracy so well pointed out.) I don't have to like the pain it caused, the inconvenience it caused, the damage to clients it will cause, and I don't have to let that go and smile at the nice man with the axe!
>
>Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. Ah, but how does one live with it? There are many options! All who have almost hostilly said, "Move on!" followed that with leaving our little safe haven of VFP and seeing the wider world of (Microsoft .NET ONLY) programming. I have been in an even wider world and have lots of experience, so I should not apply that to me, or those of my friends it may have been directe to that it does not fit and smile!
>
>With my nice multi platform tool kit, many of the tools not significantly worse than .NET, but none better for RAD than VFP ... there are MANY options. I haven't loaded Linux 9, yet. I'm loading it this week. It was on the plans last fall. But, I got an impetus to move on!
>
>That is one way. .NET is in there, has been. I loaded it and futzed with it, hacked with it in its 2003 incarnation, have loaded and am looking at Mere Mortals Framework for .NET
>
> What I don't have is a Apple, yet. I have a set of bins in my tool box that now have VFP and associated tools in them. I guess Apple stuff can go in them when I pitch the old VFP stuff like I pitched the old OS/2 stuff. (Microsoft so well forgets that THEY showed OS/2 to me, under NDA yet, not IBM. But ... like in 1984, they never heard of it! It was always a stupid enemy plot!)
>
>Move on! They say. Of course! But, most of the "move on" types have insisted there is only one way to go ... as they floow the Redmondian flag.
>They scorn the people who cry "ouch" to having a finger or two whacked off.
>
>(I knew it was coming but there was no way to stop it. I had foolishly grafted on a MSFT finger and thumb! That doesn't make it feel better when the axe falls. I hoped it would be later, after I let the fingers atrophy. Wasn't. Still hurt. Hurt in advance.)
>
>As you said, Tracy, you don't like it either. And I appreciate your defense of those who cry "ouch" and express anger at the axe man.
>
>Not only do we have the right to cry "ouch" when they chop off fingers, we have the right to replace them (a la Luke Skywalker's hand) with our choice of replacements.
>
>It is MSFT's right to do with their property anything they want. And yes, I had grafted onto my hand a MSFT set of thumb and finger. .... So they can take it back. But, just as they have the right to take it back, I have the right to not like it, cry out in pain, move on to another flag or raise my own!
>
>I'll not let another MSFT tool set get to be that important to me and will put third party or better, open source tools in between me and MSFT from now on. Hay, that makes developing for Linux and Apple in addition to Windose all that much easier anyway. It is the wiseset and safest choice. Keep em all at arms distance. All. Especially the man who took his stuff back and asked me to buy somethign else from him, while he still has his string on it to yank it back at his pleasuer.
>
>I knew all that, but VFP was so seductivly nice. I won't stumble into a seductive trap like that again!
>
>
>
>Thanks again Tracy for your defense of those who cry out. And for pointing out it was MSFT's stuff to take back if they want. It is. It helps me remember not to trust them or anyone else selling a license to use a thing they own. It is always foolish to do that. Put something you can own in between all of them and you!
>
>
>
>
>
>I'll let this snip stand for much in the therad.
>=============================================================================
>Hi Dragan,
>
>SNIP
>>I don't have that problem, either, as long as the "have to" comes from where my bread is buttered.
>
>Which is exactly what MSFT is doing. I don't like it, but I'll get by and MSFT has the right to do as they see fit for their business. This is the opportunity for many to expand their knowledge and toolset even if it was forced upon them. (I may finally move faster on the dotnet route than I have in the past now - I am switching to vb.net instead of c# purely as a business requirement. I'll still work in c# where I can). It gives many VFP developers the support (for the 1st time in some shops) from their employers to learn a new tool and the time and support to make the move. For many, the decision to stay with VFP or to use ONLY VFP was a business decision and now it will be a business decision to plan for the future and make a change (when necessary). For independent developers, the situation is different in many cases.
>
>Having written that, I still fully support anyone who wants to invest time and energy in voicing their request for future support of VFP from MSFT. MSFT's doing what is best for it, and our fellow developers are doing what they think is best for their business. It may be futile (no maybe about it in reality) but I still support them. I think that as long as it is done in a professional manner then it should be supported. Everyone seems to be supporting MSFT because we know it was a business decision but few seem to be supporting their fellow developers who are acting based on business needs as well.
>Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)