John:

I believe you are right on the money when you talk about the foxhole (<g>) that Microsoft just created. Access may fit partially in there somewhere, but its programming (scripting) language AFAIK doesn't even begin to match Fox's. Then again, it's been a long while since I looked at Access or did anything with it. What are they thinking (or drinking) in Redmond, I wonder...

I wouldn't wish a huge, gnarly C/C++ codebase on anybody else except the people who created the mess (brilliant as it may be) to begin with. So, if the MS-ers are not going to do it, I don't think anyone else can. At best VFP can give someone a target to shoot for with a more modern technologies/language. We'll see -- I believe that whenever there is a vacuum, something or somebody will fill it, sooner or later. Sort of a reverse of the "If you build it, they will come" -theme; in this case it goes:"If you come, they will build it".

>MS didn't keep VFP around because of the product or the tech gap I described - they did it because of sales to the faithful. A shame.

Is it, really? A bit callous, maybe, but if they were fulfilling a need, what's so shameful about that?

Anyways, interesting points and insight from someone who's been in the trenches and knows what a foxhole looks like.


Pertti