Jos,

I don't really care whether you agree or not with a post you misunderstood.

To illustrate my point, Picasso and an average painter do totally different paintings using the same tools. The difference lies in 3 areas:
1- Picasso is talented for painting
2- Picasso has teamed with many other painters like Braque and others
3- Picasso has worked much more than other painters
Nowhere does the tooling play any role in Picasso's work.

What counts most is how much collective intelligence a community puts in using its tools.

AFAIK, WinDev is not able to run the same application on the desktop and the Web like does VFP + FoxInCloud; what are the productivity gains when you need to maintain 2 versions of the same application?

>Fundamentally disagree with the gist of your post. In essence what you are saying is that if you are an expert in VFP then you should stick with VFP because it will take 2 years to be expert in anything else. I dont think this is a good reflection of the state most (VFP) developers find themselves in.
>
>In the first place, most (VFP) developers are not experts - most of us, by definition, will fall along the bell curve middle area. But more than this, is it better to be an expert developer in an old language with old IDE and old tools or a decent developer in a modern language with modern IDE and tools? The latter, imo, easily wins this argument because modern development tools do so much for the developer its unbelievable. In a modern language with modern tools so very many things are just done out of the box, ready made; many tools can be applied with little or even no coding. So many new controls to work with.
>
>Personally I can refer to WinDev, which I am NOT expert in at all by any measure; it is years ahead of anything I could do in VFP (or at least what I could do easily). An average developer like me is easily 5 times faster in development than in VFP (which I have used since dBase II days). And a good VFP developer with solid coding insights will be up and running in 6 months or less. It is so far ahead of VFP9 it's unreal. And .Net IDE and tools are, I am sure, the same.
>
>What you are saying is the that an expert doctor without access to modern equipment (x-ray, MRI, etc.) is better than a decent (obviously qualified) doctor who does have access to modern equipment. I rather go with the latter.
>
>I think a better argument to stay with VFP, as has been expressed here several times, is the existence of a large code-base which works and does not have a business case for a re-write into something else. That makes sense (e.g. Walter Meester for example). But to build new, commercial apps with VFP ... that doesn't make sense.
>
>.