>>>Point I was to make;
>>>How come VFP still being part of M$dn distribution is considered such 'risk' and is on a no-go list for corporations.
>>>It is M$ product after all, why it has been treated as syphilis ? Who advised them to do so ?
>>>VB is somehow ok but VFP no ?
>>
>>М$ may change, but its policies are forever. And spreading. VFP was an adopted child; VB the less gifted but heir apparent. Guess to whose prom night would Bidža* go?
>
>Mostly agreeing (~80%), but vfp devs arguing for remote dbf as datastore for anything in this century also did vfp a disservice IMO.

I always slightly cringed when phrase "vfp tables" was used instead of "dbfs". Because the SMB2 shit (IMO a completely intentional move by M$ to squeeze out any ISAM database which may rely on file sharing - bTrieve and many others - in order to sell SQL servers), they became unreliable, ...

>Whenever the problems inherent to that approach surfaced, vfp and not the bad practice was blamed...

...but instead of blaming M$ and the SMB2 cockup, it was always set up to blame VFP.

But now, looking at my 33 years at the keyboard, it was 3 years of Cobol and 30 years of Fox. So I didn't have to waste my time becoming moderately proficient in six or seven languages over that time, I got good enough in Cobol and some expert in Fox. Obsolete, suspect, underadvertised, bled of programmers to near death, it still got me through all those years.

And I'm still using it for my pet projects :).