John, you just blew me away!! Thanks for signing. I'd like to take some of your points and set them out for further public discussion. While UT is indisputably a great place for discussion of VFP issues, it really presents a problem as a vehicle for a lengthy, collaborative, public effort such as the one that's cooking on wiki. I have no problem with promoting greater membership and discussion on UT, which is, after all, free, but I think that appropriate use of wiki, as a practical matter, also has it's place. Thanks again, John. I assure you that what you just did was a lot more than a token gesture!
Mike
>Okay, here it goes:
>
>
>
>
>Sure. Then again, MS, Robert Green, Ricardo Wenger know where I stand on this issue.
>
>
>Do you think that a compelling business argument can be made?
>
>Yes, compelling arguments can be made. At least, they would be compelling to you, not necessarily to MS. The key here is to be persuasive. Then again, the folks at MS already know what VFP is best at. They know and understand the arguments already. It is simply a matter of putting a plan into action.
>
>Between these first two questions, there is nothing that MS does not already know..
>
>
>Do you think that such a document could sway Microsoft from its seeming determination to make the demise of VFP a self-fulfilling prophesy?
>
>
>If MS takes VFP out of the box, they will not be able to use the fallback position of burying VFP in VS marketing. Therefore, MS will have to do some marketing. Any marketing, where the developer community has input, out of the shadow of VS, will have a positive effect.
>
>Personally, I would prefer to concentrate on what can be done, instead of trying to stop something that may or may not be tied in. Trying to concentrate on what can be done is a far easier task.
>
>
>
>Or do you dismiss this as a hopeless, idealistic endeavor?
>
>
>I don't think it is hopeless. Rather, I think this, like the VFPDA, is misguided. The sentiment is right. The tactics are not.
>
>Look, I have lobbied MS for 2+ years to take VFP out of the box. Those efforts intensified once I saw what .Net was all about.
>
>When the question was put in front of some people about the idea of creating a version of VFP and basing it on the CLR so that it could be hosted in .Net, there was ONE and only ONE dissenting opinion. Yes, that too was me.
>
>Like me or dislike me, I do know what would serve this community best as far as VFP is concerned. Taking VFP out of the box is one step. Next, marketing, where the developer community can provide input is the second issue. The third part is to then help provide strategic input on VFP 8. What the product needs are real strategic enhancements to make it work better with the likes of SQL-Server and the ability to raise COM events ala VB 6.
>
>Finally, while we agree on the concept, I think we disagree with the tactics to employ while trying to make for positive change.
>
>Your heart is in the right place. And in the end, I suppose that is what should really matter. So with that said....
>
>sure, I will sign... :)
>
>< JVP >
