>>Are you using it yourself only or in production ?

Deployed apps for over 2 years.

>>As I had trouble reading his sites - can you give a bullet point list of enhancements done/fixes to vfp besides encryption of compiled stuff ?

Off the cuff there are some Windows compatibility improvements, known reporting bugs fixed, phantom breakpoint bug fixed, ExecScript() max length bug fixed... basically known issues resolved.

>>From what I gathered, he is still running at speeds similar to vfp for compiled vfp code, but less accessible to Refox ?

Refox still can decompile the residual VFP shell that usually has little useful content. Hooking of the dll still is possible but there are ASM thwarts and it's an awful experience trying to piece the VFP code back together, especially loops. Performance can be slightly improved for simple expressions.

>> Or has the compilation to machine code eliminated some of vfp's shortcomings like the heavy perf hit for calling functions/methods when compared to languages like C#/Java/native C(++) ?

Depends what you're doing- most functions now are in a C++ dll, plus you can inline C++ or ASM which is how we do AES encryption: the C++ is inlined right there in the VFP procedure and gets compiled as native C++ when Make is called to generate the dll.