>I just came to know that a third party tool for converting foxpro/dbase programs directly to VB is round the corner, will it spell doom for us (VFP), (***Pray Not***)
>
>Shashi
A convertor that does anything useful is not possible, so don't worry about it. Any kind of convertor that made this claim would be almost all hype. The only way to convert a VFP app to VB without code is to create a VFP DLL then invoke it in VB.
Below is my response to a CompuServe VFOX forum posting asking about the future of VFP and how his IT department heard a rumor that VFP was being phased out...
==========
What do they want to hear? I ususally avoid these VFP Dead Threads, but this time I'll take a Mark McGwire swing at it.
The Good: VFP is not dead.
The Bad: Microsoft never discusses unannounced products.
The Ugly: Dibert-like managers thinks that not announcing a future product means it's dead.
To help your situation, I'll list a few things for you to forward to your Dilbert-like IT/IM group. And not to evade your last point, I'll clearly state that this message has a 3-tier architecture: 1) specifically designed to give you a concrete response to your concerns 2) resolve this issue once and for all 3) help you go to sleep.
Note: This message may be re-posted in any similar "Is VFP dead thread?".
====================
Top 10 replies to a VFP Dead Thread:
10) The Visual FoxPro team at Microsoft is actively working on the next version of VFP, therefore it is not dead.
9) Microsoft doesn't discuss any future product that is not announced, not just VFP. For example, VB6 also recently shipped with VS6, same time as VFP6. The is no evidence or statements from Microsoft that shows VB has any more or any less of a future than VFP.
8) Windows 98 is being phased out. There will be NT 5.0, then WinCE 3.0. As far as what Bill Gates said at TechEd last June, Windows will evolve into NT and CE, 2 version of Windows not 3. The key word here is evolve, not upgrade with a new version of the same name. So Windows 95/98 is being phased out. Does this mean you should not install Win 95 or Win 98 now, just because in the future there will not be a direct upgrade with the same name? Obviously the version of WinNT after 5.0 will be some merger of the evolution of Win98 and WinNT 5.0. This doesn't mean that Winodws is dead, right?
7) Does a mechanic not use a certain 16mm wrench because there is a rumor that future cars will not have 16mm nuts and bolts, and that no tool manufacturer will be making that wrench in the anymore? Or does the mechanic go ahead and use the right tool for the job, now. And nobody can give you a valid argument by crying "What about our invenstment in source code?". Let me ask this. Is anyone, that's willing to admit it, running pure 2.6 compatible FoxPro code in Visual FoxPro 6.0 today? No. So to say that the source code for a VFP 6.0 app will be the same code used in a business application in 5 years is insane. If there was a programming language invented that did everything that VFP/VB/Delphi/PB/C++/Java did and it was called Visual Pig Latin, deveopers would use it. Any decision by someone to not use a particular product because there exists some guess that the product will be not be upgraded in the future is a sign of someone who does not understand how software evolves, and should not be making technical decisions on software development.
6) If VFP6 is a better tool to build a particular type of application than VB6, then why use VB6? Some apps are best solved with VFP, some using VB, and many by using both VFP and VB together. A non-technical person would argue something about code investment by chosing a certain language now. Maybe running VB6 code in some future version of VB will be just some backward compatible mode, and that much of the VB app would have to be re-written in order to take advantage of the new VB features. That's almost always the case, with any language product by any company.
5) Future apps will be part of the Microsoft Digital Nervous System, and will be IE/browser client (DHTML/XML), middle tier components (VFP/VB/J++/etc.), and SQL Server for data store. Remember that SQL Server 7 will run on Win95/98, and that it's replication features are just the start. The future will have SQL Server on most desktops. Remember that the DBF data store with VFP code manipulating it is still, and will be in the future, great for the middle tier (lookups, data-driven logic, etc.), but is not strategic for a future scalable/secure data store on the server side. And remember, VFP is currently the best client product for SQL Server Microsoft sells, use for either the client or the middle tier.
4) Maybe you should convince them to use Java for developing your database application. I'm sure the 3 people in the entire world doing actual database apps with Java will want you to be the 4th to join their 100% Java crusade, and maybe you can be the first to build a true cross platform Java database application with high performance using rapid development techniques. I'm sure the 10 UNIX users will apprieciate your efforts, the 8 OS/2 fans cheer you on, the 14 Mac users will honor you with development achievement awards, the 3 Sun Workstation administrators will install it for you free of charge, and the 1 network computer user will actually use it.
3) If the Dilbert folks are very worried about picking a development platform that will be around in the future for certain, then start coding your UI, business rules, and database in Assembly Language. Then you can go post a message on some Intel forum/newsgroup called "Pentium going away?" because one of the Dilbert managers heard a rumor about a future phasing out of the Pentium chip.
2) Maybe you can convince them to simply use Visual Studio and BackOffice together to build the app, and that you will use the proper components of each to build the application. You can have a t-shirt made that says "Visual Studio" on the front and "BackOffice" on the back, then were a tie over it just to impress them.
1) You don't have to be a Dead Head to get stoned from a VFP Dead Thread.
