>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is FUD in a move from one platform to another, no doubt, but my main issue is that M$ has screwed me once and I don't want them to have that opportunity again.
>>>>>
>>>>>That more than makes sense to me. Especially since they didn't go out of their way to provide a migration for the huge investment of legacy code that has been created.
>>>>>
>>>>>They did the same thing to VB programmers. Will we be surprised when they invent the next new platform and do the same to .NET developers???
>>>>
>>>>They will, it's just a matter of time. Effectively, they've been doing some of it in each version of .NET. They change things that break code, they go off in different directions, they put forth new data acess techniques, and eventually they will get rid of .NET completely and we'll have to rewrite everything again.
>>>>
>>>>It's interesting what we let them do, just because they have a EULA. Imagine if a manufacturer of hammers could stop supporting hammers and all its old hammers just stopped working. Why is this allowed with software? Why doesn't business get Congress to force M$ and others to offer a clear an reasonably easy path to the new technology or keep supporting the old technology or open-source or sell the old technology to someone who will? Instead M$ has you over a barrel and can force you into a move despite the fact that your app may work just fine and you feel it's got 5 (or whatever) additional years left in it. I certainly wouldn't suggest that people use assembly or Fortran programs forever just because they still work, but shouldn't it be up to the owners of the software? Shouldn't they be able to change on their timetable? There are, of course, similarities with hard goods since a car might be discontinued and it will eventually be unrepairable due to lack of parts, but software is intangible and easily changed, so why should M$ (and others) get the right to break my product and effectively cause damage to my company and clients?
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps if they abandon their software, the clauses in the EULA preventing the decompilation of their software should be invalidated.
>>>
>>>A hammer is slightly simpler than a software development language/tool/framework, don't you think?
>>>
>>>Also, they are not trying to force anyone to move to .NET.
>>>
>>>Please don't get me wrong because I don't completely trust Microsoft, either. But it would genuinely surprise me if "they get rid of .NET completely," as John put it and you agreed, any time soon.
>>>
>>>Besides, what ever led anyone to believe they could keep using the same tools forever in the software business? I have been writing software since 1980, the mainframe assembly language days, and never for a minute expected that. In fact it's one of the things that made this line of work appeal to me, that you don't just drill the same rivet for 40 years. That would drive me nuts!
>>
>>Tell me where I said that.
>
>John Fatte: "They did the same thing to VB programmers. Will we be surprised when they invent the next new platform and do the same to .NET developers???"
>
>Russell Campbell: "They will, it's just a matter of time."
>
>Not trying to perpetuate any ill will, just answering a direct question. (Was recently accused of evading them). I just got done posting a message saying kudos to you and Mike Cole for the way you put the anger behind you.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said "tell me where I said that", I was responding to the very last thing you said, which was about expecting to use a tool forever. I'll generally be more specific if I'm responding to something earlier in the message as opposed to something right at the end, but I should be more specific in all cases. I figure you could use a tool forever (M$ certainly wants you to use Windows and Office forever <g>) if the developer keeps updating it, but too often in this industry it's more about what's new and glitzy than anything else. Heck, they have OO COBOL now. I wouldn't want to use it mainly because of its verbosity (or at least it used to be very verbose), but you could keep coding in Cobol and if your employer/client is happy, then what does it really matter? But as much as it is possible, it's just generally not happening (perhaps COBOL is the exception). VFP could be an exception also if they put the resources into it and didn't see it as detrimental to the bottom line (yes, as Mike pointed out, MS SQL Express is free, but it wasn't always that way). We can be glad writing in assembly is no longer needed, many people are glad to be rid of COBOL (in their life, at least), but I'm not glad about the EOL decision on VFP and I'm not anxious to reward the company that deflated the tires on my car (however, their position being what it is, I may not be able to avoid that). Ruby on Rails, Python, REALbasic, OpenLazlo, and a few others interest me (not necessarily in that order), but for now VFP is the bread and butter. VFPX is a great resource. In .NET, I would no doubt be looking very seriously at StrataFrame, especially since its developers were/are VFP developers.

And thanks for the kudos remark. I don't want to argue or be rude . . . I let my emotions get the better of me.