Hi Charlie,

I have no trouble at all with what you've said here, but I do want to elaborate a little on "Make VFP all it can be 'cause that's all I want,".

This is a VFP forum. And it is (at least somewhat) independent of MS. Where better to express one's wishes and concerns regarding the "direction" of VFP???

I have acknowledged that there is far more to the world than VFP and that much of the world is rushing to the Web and other recent facilities.
I see real strength in VFP in general, but I see that strength being watered down severely with a focus on mid-tier to the exclusion of all other aspects of the language.
I have said that I am happy to see VFP progress toward a mid-tier position, provided that it is not done to the exclusion of other parts of the language.

Recently, George T. said that I insulted the VFP Team by saying that I'd believe that they are serious about keeping VFP viable as a 1-/2-tier solution when I see it happen. I wonder how else I am to interpret the fact that at least 3 known VFP 5.0 GUI bugs of a serious nature remain in VFP 6 despite statements at last DEVCON that 'they fixed countless bugs including lots that had been in the product from FPD/FPW days'???

Very recently Craig B. (unofficial spokesman for MS as I see it) stated that MTS was only half-ready when the deadline for packaging forced development cut-off for VFP 6. Now how does this square with DEVCON statements that 'we are ready for packaging but being held back by other components'? And how does it square with the pbulicity that MTS was a full feature of VFP?

It remains my belief that there are far more small-medium businesses out there that *could* benefit from a 1-/2-tier VFP solution than there are bigger businesses that can and will spend the dough to hire SQL and xxx and yyy experts in addition to app. developers. It remains my belief that VFP is *not* getting the attention on the GUI and other 1-/2-tier aspects of the platform which will continue to make it viable for the small/medium business market. It remains my belief that the continued insubstantial improvements to the VFP documentation contribute to its difficult learning curve and its too frequent trying/trashing by many programmers.

Cheers,

Jim N

>>Hi Charlie,
>>Well, I'd say things are kind of split at this point. I've got people saying that Joe Carpenter builds some of the house with VFP and hires someone else to do the rest and I've got other people saying that Joe is ambidextrous (sp) and can save money by not hiring as much help. (Metaphor talk is tough...)
>>
>>True, I know you can do everything you need with VFP at this point, but what of the future? Do we definitely hire someone with other skills that we might one day need? Is it possible that we are capable of doing more than VFP?
>>
>>I guess I (as usual) kind of ride the fence on this one. I see possible benefits and problems with both points of view. Man, what's the fun in not taking a stance. Still, honesty isn't completely out of style yet.<<
>
>And you may be right. I really believe nearly everyone is right and wrong at the same time. Jim Nelson's voice in the wilderness, "Make VFP all it can be 'cause that's all I want," and John Peterson's, "ADO's where it's at." To Stephen Black everything is an object; Drew's put it all in a big PRG, Craig Berntson thinks MS is almost always right, and finally Rick Stralh's, "Don't be concerned about buzz words and what's new, concentrate on solutions for your clients."
>
>I think each person sees the situation in a mix of their experience, their temperment or predisposition, and their talent. The outcome, I hope, is higher quality software. By listening to each point of view, we continue to re-evaluate our actions and opinions with, again, the aim of better software. Too often quality is looked upon as simply working without error and delivering the right output. And, of course, that's pretty important. But if it has to be rewritten every couple of years, or is difficult to maintain, it's really not high quality.
>
>I don't think I disagree with either side of this issue either, except to repeat what I think Rox said earlier. It's important to master some language, otherwise how will you really understand what quality is. I knew FPD2.6 pretty well, and as times have changed, have learned the OOP techniques of VFP. As more time passes I'm sure I'll continue to learn more. (Went to a COM+ seminar two weeks ago.) However, I think the main thing folks like me are trying to discourage, is someone who thinks they should add languages to their resume` without much competence in them or without a great understanding of any one. I think because I'm so slow to learn new ones, surely others must be too. But that view only shows my own predisposition. Back to houses: As Don Henley says in "The Last Resort", "Put up a bunch of ugly boxes, and Jesus, people bought 'em!" So, you never know.