Hi Jim ----

I know that you are a "defender of the faith" when it comes to traditional VFP application architecture (and I respect that), but you're flat-out myopic in some aspects. To whit:
>
>1) What is this "trend" to thin-client, etc??? Maybe for Internet apps that might be a "trend", but there is far more to the world you know. Not every business - in fact not all that many bisnesses - have a *need* for Internet deployment.
>

You are right and wrong at the same time. Browser-based apps does not denote internet apps. If the browser is becoming a common and sustainable metaphore, then it's a good platform to host an application interface, right?

>2) So I guess that HTML supplanting VB is the source of the paranoia in the VB camp? Well, isn't that special now... *we* can be gleeful for the paranoia of the VB camp while, all the while, VFP is whittled away to be a mere shadow of its former self! Let's all smirk together at the VB camp while we go down in flames!
>

Sh*t happens, Jim. We can all bemoan the loss of horse-and-buggy drivers or we can adapt our driving abilities to nw technologies that still demand driving skills.....VFP is a competent player (and soon much more so) in n-tier development....so use your favorite tool.

As to the rest of your comments, I have to draw attention to a statement where you decry moving beyond VFP to a web-based world but claim it's MS driven. It's not, Jim. Believe me, I have no anti-VFP tendencies at all but I see the writing on the wall as to enterprise solutions architecture.

God knows where all this will end up 10 years from now, eh? But I am fairly certain that a single-language monolithic approach to systems design is doomed to failure regardless of the merits of a given language.