>>>>>>I guess you didn't hear that this time M$ killed VFP for real. And UT has nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, I'm here to tell you all that the UT is NOT the center of the VFP Universe and that most of you have zero idea of the big companies that maintain and enhance very large VFP apps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I work at one of the largest banks in the world with over thirty VFP developers (some are now managers, VPs) on, arguably, one of the largest VFP SAR apps in existence:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(1) 1400+ screens
>>>>>>>(2) Over 700 branch offices
>>>>>>>(3) Dozens of .NET web services supporting the core VFP product.
>>>>>>>(4) QA teams in India
>>>>>>>(5) etc., etc., etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All told, there are over 1,000 employees and contractors that support the project in one way or another. The Bank has NO plans (let me repeat, NO plans) to migrate the core VFP product to .NET. or any other platform - they have been unsuccessful numerous times over the years. There is one person on this thread who knows about this project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The funny thing is that of all the VFP developers we have, only two or three have ever HEARD of the UT. In fact, of the many dozens of VFP programmers I have worked with over the years, I estimate that roughly 10% have heard of the UT and maybe 2% are actually members. Can you blame them? Who wants to read these stupid "VFP Dead Threads". I have been in and out (out mostly) of the UT for many years and nothing has changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Still running Cobol on the Honeywells too? They'll make a comeback some day. Tube memory still beats the crap out of those little transistor do-jobbies.
>>>>
>>>>Cobol is still the king - used more than any other language.
>>>>http://ansit.wordpress.com/2006/11/22/cobol-still-used-in-largest-data-centres/
>>>
>>>Lots of different takes on usage/popularity.
>>>
>>>http://langpop.com/
>>>
>>>http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>>>
>>>Cobol is way down there. Fox is even further down.
>>
>>Yeah I don't think they know what they're talking about or the data is skewed for some reason.
>>
>>Facts about COBOL (Source: Datamonitor (November 2008),‘COBOL – continuing to drive value in the 21st Century’) - although I've read countless articles from reliable sources that show the same stats....
>>
>>Around 200 billion lines of COBOL code are in live operation
>>75% of the world’s business data is processed in COBOL
>>90% of global financial transactions are processed in COBOL
>>There are 1.5 - 2 million developers, globally, working with COBOL code
>>Around 5 billion lines of new COBOL code are added to live systems every year
>>$2 trillion is the total investment in COBOL systems.
>>Five billion lines of new COBOL are developed every year.
>>More than 80 percent of all daily business transactions are processed in COBOL.
>>More than 70 percent of all worldwide business data is stored on a mainframe.
>>More than 70 percent of mission-critical applications are in COBOL.
>>Even 50 years later, 15 percent of all new application functionality will be written in COBOL.
>>More than 310 billion lines of software are in use today and more than 200 billion lines are COBOL (65 percent of the total software).
>>There are 200 times more COBOL transactions per day than Google searches worldwide.
>>COBOL has been fashioned for execution within framework environments such as Java and Microsoft's .NET. Micro Focus supports object-oriented COBOL compilers targeting the .NET framework.
>
>I was quite surprised by the highlighted one (by me).

Well, if you think about it - considering there are 200+billion lines of COBOL code and around 5 billion lines of new COBOL code added every year to live systems I'm suprised it's not more than 15%. I was really just poking fun at the "Still running Cobol on the Honeywells too? They'll make a comeback some day" comment because as I've pointed out here - there is more COBOL than anything else.