Foxhole? Heh, I like that!

There just doesn't appear to be room for more than one grand vision in the Developer Division at MS. Anything that is not .Net oriented is not really given much thought.

It's not about fulfilling a need, it's ignoring a need that isn't going anywhere soon. Look at the popularity of non-MS tools like FileMaker.




>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