That kind of thing was surmised even before this announcement. We'll know in August, I guess.


>Maybe the VFP.net Compiler? Maybe that's why it disappeared? :o)
>
>
>>It depends if a) it is VFP.Net with a visual interface; and b) who makes the announcement. We'll see soon enough.
>>
>>VFP's demise was the internal politics of resources, in an organization that has a history of being rudderless at the top. Lots of motivation (was it you who mentioned the "coffee is for closers" line, which I saw immediately as fitting Ballmer?), but no discernment, because the requirements for discernment aren't present.
>>
>>As Machievelli noted, when the Prince is weak, the Dukes will fight among themselves.
>>
>>But there have been successes lately. ScottGu has been bringing out a series of products that would have been impossible to produce (what? give away free controls? why?). And Jim Hugunin opened the door to not only IronPython, but IronRuby and IronJS. The latter 3 are underfunded, to be sure, but that they exist (under the Apache license!) is a miracle. In other words, a couple of the Dukes on our side are in the ascendency. So I think it's possible. Not probable based on what I've mentioned here, but possbile.
>>
>>Hank
>>
>>>Hank, not sure why MS would want or need to do anything with VFP. After years of damning with faint praise it'd cause confusion, just as their lurchings about for mobile devices are causing confusion at the moment.
>>>
>>>FWIW I sincerely believed in 1995 that MS was going to market VFP properly as an awesome OO development system for SQL Server and 32-bit apps, since it was the only 4GL product they had did both at that point. I was disappointed and came to realize that hoping for something to happen on rational grounds is not a predictor in this crazy old world. ;-) In 2010 I still see no reason why they'd do anythig for VFP. Not that I care so much: most of my VFP apps now are C++ dlls with a notional VFP wrapper, that are more difficult to disassemble than an ordinary C++ dll.