Jim,

Interesting! One thing is for sure. We won't be able to blame you for not having said it :).

Marc


>Marc,
>
>We have two different sets of issues being discussed. The issue of what is there today, and then what will (or should) there be in the future. These two very different issues are being confused in this thread. Many posts are talking about VFP's current weaknesses as reasons that it isn't a premier middle tier tool. No one is saying that VFP IS a premier 2nd tier tool today.
>
>As for the problems with componentization, there are less problems today than there were 2 years ago. There will be even less problems 2 years from today. The technology for integrating multiple development tools in a single system is evolving.
>
>The real point I am trying to make is this, if one decides they don't like this new approach to building apps and ignores it and continues doing things the same old way, one of two things will happen. 1) they will gradually become as obsolete as the methods they are using, or 2) the entire direction of the industry will take a full about face turn and reverse the trends of the last 3-5 years and they will seen as visionaries.
>
>I think the second possibility is very unlikely. Therefore, whether you are now using component designs, you should be experimenting with them and comming to grips with the technologies that are involved.
>
>As for VFP, I am afraid that we, as a group, may be asking for the very thing that will kill the product. MS doesn't want to confuse their customers. VFP is a small number of customers when compared to VB. If VB and VFP overlap, it is VB that will get the promotion (good business sense). VFP MUST specialize if it is to survive for any extended period of time. VFP would require a complete rewrite to become a premier UI tool. VFP has a great database engine, but so does SQL Server. VFP is the only high level fully object oriented development language in the MS arsenal (a real potential for specializing).