>>So cars should be using the carburation system they had in the 50s because we could have kept using the same parts and tuneup skills.

Car manufacturers came up with improvements and validated them before presenting them to customers as a single consistent product of undoubted value. Certainly each customer did not get a unique carburetor system based on the hobby preferences of their mechanic. A more appropriate analogy would be car manufacturers deciding that a new form of petrol is needed requiring a new engine with the old petrol no longer supported, and then dropping the new petrol in favor of diesel because the vendor makes more profit from diesel- with legions of fanbois singing praises the whole time.

>>Failure to innovate productively and to embrace the innovation is deadly intellectually, spiritually and practically.

Yes, but juxtaposing sentences does not create a connection. Apply your sentence to the analogy above and see if it still flies.

>>Curious - are you still doing new development in VFP? If not, why not. Do you think doing non-legacy VFP development today is an example of standardizing and minimizing variation to improve quality?

It doesn't matter what I'm doing. The point is that most industries by now were well along the quality path towards standardization, while developers behave like artisan hobbyists who value their individuality very highly and expect the market always will too. But it won't.

>>But as to my point, I wasn't speaking to the greater good of software development as I am not sure there is such a thing. I simply mean I would have no interest in participating in a field where a skill set I develeped 20, 10, 5 or even 2 years ago was sufficient to ride into retirement (and I say this from the perspective of one who got into the field over 30 years ago when he was over 30 and, like you, had other professional achievements and skills that made learning anything about computers optional at best)

Yes, but you're painting an extreme position there. Except in times of war, medicine drives innovation far more than any other industry including IT. Vendors have far less power and practitioners have far more control and choice, even with distant HMO administrators trying to limit cost- but even the most individualistic surgeon recognizes the need to standardize and limit variation to ensure quality. You do not immediately switch to a new hit prosthesis and an vendor who discontinues equipment before customers are ready soon will have an empty order book. Even if the surgeon can cope with a myriad of intricate variations, the rest of the team cannot and the surgeon gives up the joyful pursuit of self-expression for the benefit of the patient. Maybe you can't see the difference, but I can.

>>(this was my first opportunity to use a Ricky Nelson quote in a UT post. You're welcome <g> )

Straight over my head, I'm afraid- my knowledge of US culture is recent. ;-)