Marc,

I think that sums it up.

However, just to be clear about this, I desperately wish it were *not* so.

Regards,

Jim N

>Hi JimN,
>
>So for the rest of us, the bottom line is this: If VFP is to get support from M$, it is because it is presumably "ideal" as a middle tier component. I think you argued very convincingly that this is academic at best, and practically as reallistic as VB programmers using VFP for Business Rules enforcement and more exotic "data brokerage". hihi.
>
>On the other hand the proved strength of the product, the reasons for which you and I (it would be interesting to organise some kind of poll) presumably adopted it in the first place do not come into account for support by M$.
>
>Seems to me that VFP is coming close to be a synonym of Catch22.
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Snippage
>>>The question I pose is this, should MS spend time and development dollars enhancing aspects of VFP that other tools do as well or better, or should MS invest in developing the aspects of VFP that would make a premier middle tier development tool?
>>>
>>more snippage beyond here. . .
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>On the other hand, does it really make sense for MS to (virtually) eliminate the very MAJOR selling point of VFP, namely its SPEED???
>>
>>Sure you can argue that MS is pushing SQL-Server (cause it makes much more dough for them), but that doesn't serve the small to middle, and even some larger companies very well, does it!?
>>
>>What real good is a "premier middle tier development tool", that being where the business rules are enforced and the data requirements are determined. This stuff would generally get only marginal benefit from OOP, common procedures/functions being just about as useful for such logic.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Jim N