>I'm curious how you could make the assertion that someone saying any new development should not be done in VFP, after MS says no new versions of VFP, doesn't understand VFPs position?

Did I say that?? I'm curious how you would come to that conclusion??
Again, this is the problem on this forum. People are not reading anymore.

The point is, and this is my favourate quote from someone I used to battle a lot with: 'Using the right tool for the right job'.

This means, that *IF* VFP is the right tool for the right job, would you not use it? There are so many factors involved in making a decisions what tool to use:

1. The experience of the developer
2. Whether writing mom-and-pop applications or on single instance applications
3. Maintainability
4. Price
5. Easy of use
6. Ease of deployment
7. OS to run on
8. Hardware requirements
9. Performance
10. Support

>I'm really, really curious about this one. No commercial merit???? You've always taken the opposing view when discussing technical issues like "strong typing". But I'd have to say that this comment alone shows your true colors.

Nope, your not reading into the message and drawing conclusions before you got the point. What is the commercial merit? Does a client care *if* I develiver an application running on vista and XP, but is written in VFP? What does he care? Why is VFP not a viable development tool anymore ?? Because it is not supported after 2014 ?? REALLY ??? Will it stop running on jan 2015 ?? Give me a break... FUD, FUD, FUD...

We have been fighting our choice of FPW2.6/VFP since 1994. I don't see any change in this recent events. For me there are no technical reasons not to start a new VFP project *IF* the project is suitable for VFP. Else I'd hire another programmer to do it in another language.


>Another question, how many apps have you looked at in Java/dotnet, etc. to know that only VFP can create these apps.

Ehh.. again where did I say that?? What I do say, and you can draw the conlcusions from the math, is that VFP is very strong in the local data processing. A feature I use to my advantage as much as possible. My applications are characterised as highly data driven meaning that I can provide features much more easily in VFP than in any other programming language, Just because I take fully advantage of features that are strong in VFP. The disadvantage of course is that I run into trouble porting those feature into any other language.

If you really want some backup, I can give you the names of at least 3 well known members up here who can backup my claim here, but for privacy reasons, only offline.

As for experience with java/.NET apps. The ones I've seen were terrible. A friend of mine working as a oracle troubleshooter for a lot of java apps does not have much of good to say about the average app, but of course he's a troubleshooter and sees the worst cases.

>I have a new theory I thought of after reading some of these comments over the last couple weeks. I believe the cost of entry to use a tool like VFP is low. The cost was even lower when it was FPDos and FPWindows. It's a complete environment. So you can do things without doing any reading past the Foxpro manual. I know for sure that there are many an accountant who professed himself to be a programmer thanks to Foxpro. And people who kept the technical blinders on are fine, so long as someone else has done the technical mapping and determined that only some Foxpro programming is required for a particular task.
>
>Once you try to stretch beyond that window, Foxpro programmers can get lost faster then other developers who've had to learn more then just one thing.

Absolutely true. I've met lots of those people.

>And statements such as yours show the fear you feel from leaving your comfort zone.

Huh ?? Lets see. I've been programming MS basic, since 1983, Z80 assembly 1985, Ansi C since 1988, C++, Ansi/Turbo Pascal, Turbo basic since 1990. FPD/FPW/VFP since 1994. Oracle 1994, SQL server 1998. Crystal Reports 1998. VC++ since 2002. Office VB, VB6, Some basic .NET (just learning, keeping up with tech since 2002). Then there are numberous development techniques like OOM, OOP, Design patterns, SDM/ISAC, etc. OF course my degree in software development in general (1995), the number of tools we internally use (Sugar CRM, FogBugz, Sourcegear Vault, Installshield, .NET (Yes, for internet), etc).

This makes me pure VFP foxhead refusing to look outside of the box ?? Great... So all my comments on .NET are just without merit ?? Without any foundation. My comments on the inferiouriry of .NET datahandling way back in 2002 were unfounded?

I'm perfectly able to draw my own conclusions on technical merits rather on the headless chicken run up here where everyone is fearing the sky is falling. I'm looking at my market, My position, My opportunities. I'm drawing the conclusion that there are enough posibilities to make a living with VFP. If you are not able to find it, you'd probably will not find it in other tools as well.

>I've talked to some that even acknowledge they have the fear. No matter how much I tell them that if they are truly knowledgeable, they have skills that will help ease the transition to a new tool, if not give them a leg up.

>I'm still waiting for an answer to a question I asked a while ago. I've been to many dotnet events. There seem to be quite a few busy people at these events. Not once, never ever, has the topic of data come up. Other then wether to use Business Objects vs. Datasets. That's it. The only discussion I've ever heard about data. How to properly handle it so it's scalable.

Because, you're not not in the arena where this seems to be an issue. If you were, you would not be on the .NET event. I don't expect to hear a lot of talk about the strenght of a new type fiber developed for airplanes while you're on a car event.

>Do you think all these programmers are just plain ignorant that they are just doing things plain wrong. That they can't possibly be doing it right if they are not using VFP? 95% of the IT people have it wrong?

80% of all developers are crap. 17% are reasonable, only 2% are good. Only a few tenth percent are really good overall developpers/designers.

But aside from that: In the land of the blinds, one-eye is king. Meaning that if you NEVER have enjoyed the fruites of getting the most out of local data processing, you do not know what you're missing. And this is EXACTLY the mistake MS made with .NET in 2002 and now are recognizing (proven by the significant enahncements in .NET in the data arena, LINQ). This is why the VFP team has been involved in .NET. This is why .NET is (going to be) superiour to JAVA.


Walter,