>Dear Barbara,
>
>Tu quoque? :)
>
>Of course understanding the client's business is important, but that does not mean that the tools you use, and your level of knowledge of them, to implement the solution is irrelevant.
>
>How can you estimate how much time it takes to get a job done if you do not know your language/dbms thouroughly? How can you make sure that your implementation is ok at delivery time if you do not know what the problems are of the underlying packages that you use?
>
>Analysts are (were?) thought to think indepently of the tools that will be used to develop a system, but first this theoretical, in practice, you always somehow have the tools in mind when you design solutions, and second, once you start the implementation, even this theory does not support the irrelevancy of tools.
>
>As a client of software developers, I'd rather have someone with whom I can talk and who I think will understand my business, than someone who is an expert in some language, but we are at the other side of the decision, we have to make sure that what we promess, we can deliver within time and budget and at the quality level required, and for that we need a thorough knowledge of our tools.

I agree with that last statement completely. Unfortunately, most of the people I've met in the software business, including instructors, don't practice it. And when they are confronted with the quality issue, their response: 'Don't tell them (the client) what they don't need to know (bugs in the program), and whats your problem - why kill yourself to give them a Windows grade application?'

>
>And that is why this thread is very important to all of us because our level of expertise in VFP is the investement that we have to try to recuperate. And that is also why we should at least be watchful of what MS has in mind with VFP, not take everything at face value and continue discussing the topic.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Marc