I thought I was one of the few seeing that. Isn't it great when you compete against a $100,000 VB/SQL Server/kitchen sink bid and find that it'll only take you 200 hours? So you add 200 hours as a cushion, come in somewhere in real costs at 20% to 40% of that $100K and everybody is happy.

Mike Esser hangs around here sometimes and I hope he sees this to back this up, but we just spent a grand total of 100 hours combined man-hours (my coding, his analysis) to completely rewrite, redesign, and prepare to deploy an engineering application that exceeds the capability of the original VB app in every aspect that took 2.5 years to write. Now, figure another man-day to upgrade existing installs at a single site, 8 more manhours (him alone), so it will have taken took us about 2.2, yes, TWO POINT TWO percent of the original project time. For a far superior product.

I have never seen a VFP app with the same specs take longer than a VB app to complete where both tools could be used. In fact, I have seen dramatic evidence for the opposite time and time again.

>I'm frequently thrilled when VFP stays out of the forefront. I recently considered bidding on a Web job. I knew the guys asking for the bid, and I knew that they were expecting to spend $250,000, and I knew that's what people were bidding. After looking at the specs, I knew for sure that I could do the same job using West Wind for a fraction of the price and in a fraction of the time. I saw one bid (after I backed out of the bidding) where the developers proposed using Java and SQL Server, from scratch. I say let them. They'll be 6 months late in delivery, $100,000 over budget, and they'll have a product riddled with bugs. This particular job was more than my partner and I could handle at the time, but from experience, I knew that we could do the job at half that price (though we'd never tell the client that ;)) and on time, and with a fraction of the bugs (though I'm sure we'd have plenty to be proud of).