Sylvain,

>Which is really dumb and ignorant, the statement Kevin made or you for refusing to accept that VFP is going nowhere?

The statment kevin made, because I already know and knew where VFP was going since the realse of VFP9 and have accepted that from the very beginning. You won't find a single message here from me screaming and being supprised about the announcement of YAG.

What I don't understand from the people up here that the run and scream like headless chickens as if VFP suddenly is not a viable tool anymore. There are lots of technical and commercial reasons to pick VFP over any other tool for a lot of applications. I see that totally ignored, which is really dumb and ignorant.

>What use can a software be if it's not supported in a few years or that you can't find a qualified ressource to maintain it? You have to bypass your denial period and accept that VFP will die someday Walter.

Just like your 2002 .NET application. Development tools die much slower than their applications. Something that is easily overlooked. Who is going to maintain your 2002 .NET application written in .NET 1.0 ?? Its archaic data access ? Will you find someone in 2012 being able to do that, or has it to be rewritten? If so, how many time will you rewrite your .NET application in 10 years. How many upgrade issues ? Compare that with VFP3 -> VFP9 upward compatibility.

We have a young team of VFP developers in house who still have some 30 years of working to do before their pension. We certainly will have swithced development platform by then :) What it would be?? I don't know yet. But now certainly is not the time to switch trains. It is too early to see which tool will be the best replacement of our VFP applications. The data arena is under too much development.

Generalisations, Generalisations, without looking outside of your little corner of your world.... Tsss...