I think another factor is the one-eyed man thing. The Land of the Blind is getting smaller. When I first got into this the tools and skill level of developers for PC apps was such that if you could get *anything* to work you were a wizard.

Now, the tools are such that if you can't get *something* to work you're an idiot (or in IT management) and expectations are a little higher.

Developers have a lot more choices, but they also have a lot more demanded of them. Tools that have remained static - and I include the DBF model in that, albeit there was a bit of a shot in the arm with the introduction of the DBC - are going to have a limited life-cycle. I think developers who have limited their architecture within the VFP world to the drag a dbf table onto a form are finding the idea of any new paradigms daunting - but that is for the same reason that they are writing those kinds of apps anyway. The equivalent on the VB side are those folks who are using the .net data wizards to write 2 tier apps (though that is still probably a step up from what a beginner could do easily in VB 6 )

I think the thing that has hurt VFP more than anything - starting back in the 90s - was the tenacious clinging to DBFs because that matched the model of using VFP that people were comfortable with - even though with visual foxpro we had the tools to do something else. Foxpro as a language (for all its legacy backward compatibility awkwardness) can be defended with a straight face but DBFs as a client data store (as opposed to a metadata store) were going to be a tough sell down the line.

Can't speak to Vista. Still haven't touched a box with Vista installed (I don't get out much) Seems like a beta and I don't have time for beta's. For the same reason though I've played with .net for years, I have only started to seriously work with .net in the last year after waiting for best-practices to be hammered out by those fence-jumping early adopters, third party tools and frameworks to evolve, and data access to at least begin to be serious.

I completely agree about the value being in the developer rather than the tool. (which is why no matter how good the tool there is so much bad software out there) But I think it is realistic to say proficiency with some tools is more marketable that proficiency with others. But that's a commercial rather than an intellectual decision and I'm more interested right now in the intellectual excitement factor.

And the critical mass factor. I think a lot of the progress of Fox in the 90s was based on the sheer number of developers and the quality of some of the minds that were fascinated to work with a tool that was so flexible and so fast. I see that kind of energy now in the .net world as people are fascinated with the overwhelm of the object model and the possibilities of the languages. That is attracting people who are excited by almost infinite complexity. Of course there are people adopting it as part of the herd factor but that was true of our community at one time and it helped by creating a market for those who wanted to create tools. (Unfortunately in our community the big draw of 'cheap' and 'free' also translated into reluctance to spend money for books, training and third party tools as well) But ... FIFO.



>Charles, agreed- those who want to retain their Guru status have seized the opportunity to get in early in other areas. Gurus who remained in VFP would now face a tough time recreating themselves in other spheres that already have fiercely competitive gurus and ranks of wannabes with a significant head-start. ;-)
>
>I agree there is a "buzz" from being part of new growing stuff. The difference I see is that with previous waves of change there was explosive business advantage to be had from adopting new technologies- for customers, I mean. These days it's not always as visible. It seems that the "customer" for some of this stuff is the tech community rather than the person down the chain who we expect/hope to pay for it all. ;-) The resistance to cool new stuff like Vista indicates that people are looking for value and if they can't see it, they refuse to change. I guess people can be called luddites and other names, but as they say in veterinary science: "the animal is always right." ;-) IOW if the behavior doesn't match the theory then the theory is wrong. ;-)
>
>I've spent time with NET since its early beta. But it's never matched the buzz I got in those early Fox days when each new release truly offered new stuff for which customers would queue. Meaning that value increasingly revolves around the developer rather than the products they use. The ability to program using "tool x" becomes a commodity when "tool x" no longer delivers business (customer) value merely from its use. IMHO that's what people need to be considering carefully.