meh .. I just don't see any improvement there, let alone something compelling.

If this is for desktop only, it's already dead in the water... maybe if he open-sourced it, a few people might actually get involved with it as more than a new toy..


>Greg,
>
>>>1.) "inline assembly or C++ in your VFP code" - I thought we could do this with FLLs
>
>To an extent you can, though the fll is constrained in a number of important ways, not least that it's extremely easy to hook passwords and other information passed to an fll. In-lining means you can do practically anything (including stuff you can't do with an fll) and only an accomplished hacker will be able to figure it out, but you can't defend yourself from them anyway. Works well.
>
>>>2.) 64-bit is slower for programs from what I've heard but can be faster for data if you have hugemungus data. and how the heck is this guy gonna support all the exotic bugs sure to arise in a timely fashion (if you thought MS was bad???). That is IF he get's to it..
>
>I don't care whether he gets to it or not, but it's one of the clouds brought up whenever anybody presents a silver lining. The huge anticipated task to rewrite for 64bit was also one of the reasons why VFP needed to be retired.
>
>>>3.) what's the web and mobile story??
>Unchanged.
>
>>>4.) is it really foxpro with Rushmore, speed, etc.
>
>Take a few minutes and try it.