>>>most VFP developers who could have benefited from a framework just would not invest in something that could have made them much more successful

But as you have been quite successful you may have still made the choice that was best for you. I know personally I would have never developed good VFP-SQL server apps without leveraging the thousands of hours Mike and Toni put into VFE.. I also learned most of what I knew about n-tier programming by seeing how VFE solved problems I didn't even know existed.

My entire investment in VFE amounted to less than a billable day. The learning curve was there, of course, but it would have been there, and steeper, if I had chosen to "roll my own" . And tool building is not billable.

Stonefield to me was another no brainer if you used DBC/DBFs.

I agree on XFRX.


>
>Yes, and I was one of them
>The basic appeal of VFP is its simplicity, so I am suspicious of anything that complicates it.
>
>In order to make sense to me a 3rd party tool has to produce savings in excess of cost of buying and learning it.
>A couple have met and surpassed that test, but they are rare.
>
>XFRX, for example, is a total no-brainer. I made up the cost of buying and learning it the first day I got it and I've used it so many times since that my ROI is off the chart.
>
>I found a tool from Eldos for .NET applications using PGP. It's awesome. An absolute life saver for anyone working with PGP in .NET.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> Can you put a banner over your replies to mark them as advertising? Some people maay not realize that.
>>>
>>>if this applies to any other product such as Lianja, Servoy, Windev, ASP.net, why not ?
>>
>>I think your current signature should be enough to explain your relationship to the product.
>>
>>There is nothing wrong with being proud of a business you have created and promoting it when you really believe it would solve the problem involved.
>>
>>The VFP "community" has always been very bad about supporting commercial third party products.
>>
>> My own association with the Feltmans at F1 Technologies taught me that most VFP developers who could have benefited from a framework just would not invest in something that could have made them much more successful. There was a lack of understanding about the skills required to build developer tools and the skills needed to develop business applications.
>>
>>By failing to invest small amounts of money in frameworks or important tools like Stonefield many developers who did not have the skills (or the time) to develop their own frameworks and utilities did not work as efficiently or a profitably as they could have done.
>>
>>The vast majority of the best VFP developers now use other tools for new development.
>>
>> I believe those who still think of VFP as their tool of choice for new development are either a few remaining experts who have great tools, lots of experience in business analysis and a client base that provides steady work or they are developers who lack sufficient skills in any other development platform, who may still be struggling with VFP, and need all the help they can get.
>>
>>At this stage, VFP developers should be grateful that anyone is still offering ways they can extend the life of their VFP knowledge.
>>
>>I have personally chosen to move on to other technologies for all new development but I think anyone who insists on going forward with VFP needs to know about and seriously consider products like yours that address issues in using VFP in the modern world.
>>
>>Bon courage.