>Do you really believe that if those companies could have their data and apps in sql server right now without the cost of conversion from their legacy DBFs they wouldn't take it in a heartbeat ?
>
>IOW they have data in DBFs because fifteen years ago the app got created that way when it probably was a cost-effective, flexible and equally viable solution. But that doesn't mean they have decided they like having the data in DBFs - they just like that the DBFs still work and that is cheaper than changing it.
>
>How many of those places developing *anything* new with DBFs?
>
>IMO it is the DBFs that killed VFP as much as anything. If VFP had been positioned as a SQL server business and UI tier starting about 1997 there would have been a lot more interest in keeping it going.
>
>>>>>Tell me it handles data as well and as easily as VFP.
>>>>
>>>>VFP handles DBFs/DBCs much better. SQL server - I definitely prefer .NET
>>>
>>>You beat me to it. And what serious company still wants to put their critical business data in DBFs?
>>>
>>>I have been using SQL Server as an application developer for years now but in my new gig we are using it far more extensively than I have before. EVERYTHING is done in stored procedures (or triggers or constraints) I will probably be ramping up for a bit with scripts -- shhh, don't tell the client ;-) -- but at the end of this project I will be much stronger in SQL Server than I am now.
>>>
>>>Here is today's local color. On the way back to the hotel after work I decided to check out some local radio stations. The rental car has Sirius and I had been listening to that. So I switch to FM and discover all six presets are on country stations, LOL. Gotta love it.
>>>
>>>Much nicer was being taken out to lunch by the account manager from the placement agency. We went to a first rate Cajun place. I love Cajun food and it is not very common around Chicago. I may be practically living on the stuff while I am down here.
>>>
>>>Back home for the weekend tomorrow night. It's been a terrific first week.
>>
>>And therein lies the arrogance of many developers. A company isn't a "serious company" if they don't use your tool of choice. Many serious companies still use DBFs. Perhaps some that you don't know about that you depend on. They are not always the right choice, for sure, but instead of tying "serious" to your choice of a back-end, try tying it to a company that looks at the requirements and decides on the tools based on the requirements. That's what serious companies and serious developers do. But even then there are honest differences of opinion. Will DBFs be the desired data store for the long-term. I don't know, it's doubtful due to M$'s EOL decision on VFP, but they are quite a good tool for many serious companies now. Over the long-term, they may migrate to SQL Server, Advantage Database Server, MySQL, Firebird, etc., but the seriousness of a company will still be determined by their approach to the decision, not the tool they end up with.


I really think that unless they have someone on staff who understands data storage, they don't care about the backend store as long as the front end does what it's supposed to do. In fact, in 25 years of developing software, I've never had a customer specify what the backend was. They left that up to me.

Is SQL Server better... Sure it is. Is it necessary? Not in a lot of cases. In fact, it's overkill. And why SQL Server when there are plenty of alternatives that have a more storied history to rely on.