>You made ignorant and unfair statement about platform you DO know.
>Why is that ?
>VFP might be 'xbase relic' to you since you use NET, but that is far far away from truth. You could say that for DOS versions, but not for whole VFP.

How is that an ignorant statement. An ignorant statement is one where the truth is overlooked or not based in fact. BTW, I've said this hundreds of times and it still fails to impant on the minds of people here. I STILL USE VFP TO THIS DAY. I'm not totally into .Net. I should be in a year or so.

My statement that x-base is a relic is one based on both truth and fact. There is no new definition or forward movement in the language. It is not actively being devleloped for developmental purposes. There is a declining user base and a declining use among major business as well as an increase in lack of knowledge that it even exists. Go to any developer's conference and take a poll on how many have ever used foxpro; or even more important, how many still use it. If it were so cutting edge and in demand, you think Microsoft would have stopped developing it? When was the last book published by a major publishing house on VFP? (I'm not counting Hentzenwerke here, they are not a major publisher.) When was the last major conference that had more than few hundred in attendance rather than the 1000's during the 90's. You can say all you want, but the evidence is clear. Take a poll here on the UT. Ask how many have upgraded and are using vfp 9.o and Sedna. If the respondents answered truthfully, I bet you'd be surprised at the lack of support here, in all places, for the very product that they assiduously defend.

I'm sorry for VFP, but I think you'll be safe. Third world countries will have to use it for data driven apps for the foreseeable future. It runs on less stringent hardware requirements and is easy enough to learn that anybody can program in it and deliver apps. They won't have to bother exercising their brain matter learning a system that is vast, complex and cutting edge.