This is nothing new.
Other language programers attack VFP since I can remember.

Could it be.. "the best defense is a good offense" ?

Since there is a good language (not mine) that simple doesnt die (beside all the efforts), lets keep attacking until she does.



>This is the text of a post from the lobby forum posting this morning at CodeProject.com:
>
>
>I came back a bit ago from a meeting with a local boutique software house that make accounting systems (I'm looking to buy
>several licenses).
>
>Its quite a good system. Its quite sobering to see that these guys are still using FoxPro and according to the senior guy I talked to
>(who was on the original team back in 1992 when they wrote it), about 80-85% of the code base is still unchanged.
>
>I mean, I like to try out new things and I prefer to use the right tool for the job and so on, but minimal changes since 1992? FoxPro?.
>Some people still live under a rock.
>
>
>
>My response was this:
>
>
>I am now a full time C# developer, but for 15 years I did FoxPro & Visual FoxPro. It was and still is a very
>powerful and stable development environment. The only reason I and others are leaving VFP is because MS has
>decided not to continue supporting it.
>
>That was a business decision on their part to push SQL as their primary database platform. By discontinuing VFP
>MS can leverage SQL sales. But in it's day, VFP was, and for some business apps still is, a contender for DB
>application development.
>
>I know many companies that are still using and even developing applications using VFP. Your statement that these
>people are living under a rock is almost insulting and demonstrates a lack of understanding for VFP as a viable
>development tool.
>
>As someone else already said her, If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Use the tool that's right for the job.
>
>Just my 2 cents.
>