You're preaching to the choir. When I was an "insider" I made the same arguments. I was looking for a way to get us out the the enterprise cycle but it was not to be. I thought that we should market VFP as a standalone tool to produce operational level apps that weren't enterprise but neither substitutes for Access apps. It didn't happen, unfortunately. My gut was that we should be focused on the mom-and-pop and 3rd world but I guess my views weren't prominent enough and.....so it is.

It just kills me that we weren't allowed to find a niche. We were in constant competition with languages that were strategicaly important to MS and it didn't have to be that way.

>There are things that could be done with VFP that couldn't be done if marketed to corporations. But as I mentioned before, from an MS point of view, I would think marketing outside the corp. isn't worth it.
>
>One sales call to a GM and they sell how many licenses of Office? Versus having to do a sales job on you and maybe sell 10 copies, then come to me witht the same results.
>
>>For the most part, I have to agree with you. There are exceptions, but in my experience most VFP development is done by small shops. I also believe that VFP is dead in corporate development but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
>>
>>
>>>You could call it however you like. I stating a fact based on my experience. And I've seen the results of this in hiring decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Also, I've noticed a significant difference between VFP places
>>>>>>I've worked previously and working with dotnet/java people. VFP
>>>>>>people just don't have the team discipline necessary to work in
>>>>>>a corporate environment for the most part.
>>>>
>>>>Wow, talk about a broad brush characterization...