Bill,

I understood your position and have no problem with it (reserving that special circumstances could cause different courses of action).

It was Kevin I was questioning, and in particular his continued insistence at using every opportunity to repeat his (well known by all) position and applaud anyone stating similarly.

Seems to have reached the level of childishness by now.



>>
>>Hmmmm. Have you noticed that there are still many many questions here regarding FPD and FPW.
>>
>>Those continue to be useful more than 10 years since their last release. Why would VFP be different and shorter?
>>
>>
>
>VFP may well have applications that drag on for decades. Some companies will put off upgrading/migrating until their company is in imminent danger of failing because of the delay (I'm looking for a contract for the fall now and I've been contacted by 3 fairly large companies in emergency situations because their FPW26 apps have reached an unmaintainable stage).
>
>That doesn't mean companies SHOULD drag unsupported systems out that long. It certainly doesn't mean companies should start new systems using unsupported or abandoned technologies.
>
>Would you recommend starting a new system for someone using FPW2.6? VFP 3?
>
>VFP is great for windows applications. I wish MS had not killed it, but that is what happened. I'll still use VFP for some in-house apps and for ad-hoc manipulation, but I would not do a customer a disservice by recommending new development in it for anything but a well-defined short lifespan (stopgap) application.