Damn! I just spent 45 minutes writing a reply, only to have it get lost on hitting Send. So here's an abbreviated version:

Jeff,

That article is interesting, but in our case the FUD has come from MS and ourselves (with a tad from Gartner). When VFP was put into the box (at VFP 6 if memory serves) there were lots of complaints that VFP6 wasn't delivering the things developers had been wishing/needing all along. For things like OOP-reports and OOP-menus and a few others we were told to hang on because there would be 'generic' feature of VS for these. We were told that VFP would become a "better player with VS". What do we get - VFP moving out of the box! Meanwhile, our community has continued to show fear in confronting MS with OUR NEEDS/WANTS and trust in the MS 'vision for the future'.

We had Mr. Gates himself say, in his keynote at TechEd 1998, that MS had to do a much better job at "listening to our customers". Seen any evidence in the almost 2 years since???

I wish those companies holding off for .NET much luck, cause they will need it. Just imagine the level of expertise to do the reengineering, not to mention the reliability of such a complex BRAND NEW system!.

Funny, but I was just getting back (second time) to learning VB when the .NET impact on VB was published. I, too, put it away for later.

I agree that there aren't enough qualified VFP developers. But I put the blame squarely on MS. There were over 1 million FPD/FPW developer licenses out there. Now there are around 500,000 licenses. The "MS bought FP to kill it" rumour essentially killed FP/VFP development in this town and, apparently, in lots of others. Had MS ANSWERED THAT FORCEFULLY at the time the world would be a different place today.

That there are still lots of FPD/FPW systems out there means that there are still lots of such developers (not VFP) but of course they needn't buy licenses for what they already have. With a little help from MS they *could* become productive VFP developers reasonably quickly. This also adds to my conviction that many many shops do NOT want to get involved with SQL Server or variants thereof. Too costly and too complex for their needs.

Good that you have a nice profitable niche. Here that is nearly impossible - hard to even identify shops still using FPD/FPW or VFP. Our FP/VFP User Group dissolved within 10 months after VFP3 was announced. The writing was already on the wall, the 'FP is a dead duck' rumour already having taken hold FIRMLY.

With .NET MS is faced with a first-time-ever situation - convincing ESTABLISHED shops to radically revise their working production systems and infrastructure to a whole new set of services. To date all MS was really doing was establishing new computing services (brand new or replacing mainframe apps) and these were easy sells. Customers flocked to them.
Things will be very different this time. MS got a small taste of the when customers stayed away from Office 2000 in droves even though it was all fully comaptible with its prior versions. They seem to have interpreted it as a small problem of marketing. Well I think they are in for a real shock when it comes to .NET and making easy sells.

Regards
JimN

(I had much more, with clearer rationale, in my earlier reply that was trashed. Sorry, but I hope the point comes across).

>Jim,
>
>There are many sides to this issue.
>
>The most popular is the lack of MS marketing for whatever reason along with the FUD (brief history: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2682654,00.html ) which creates financial angst. When coupled with the anger from investing countless hours learning how to master VFP only to realize that those at MS are discouraging it's use in favor of whatever technology is going to increase cash flow, it's a wonder that people haven't bailed from using any MS tools.
>
>In light of .NET, I'm glad I didn't waste my time learning VB like many folks suggested. Think of how pissed-off the so-called 5M VBers must be. Case in point: Last year, a major Entertainment Company had a couple'o'dozen FPW2.x apps that they wanted to reengineer in either VFP of VB. Unfortunately, they consulted with the Gartner Group who suggested to hold off on any new development until .NET hit the streets.
>
>The bottom line is that for MS to sustain growth, they have to create and market new technologies. They require us to implement these technologies whether the customer needs them or not. This brings me to the other side of the issue:
>
>There are not enough qualified VFP developers. When FoxPro made it's transition into the OOP world (VFP3), many developers either bailed into new pursuits or were slow to tackle the new paradigm - many still haven't. As a result, it may surprise you that there are thousands of working FPW2.x apps in existence today all of which will eventually (if not now) need to be reengineered. Here is where I make my nitch.
>
>The bottom line is that if I want to continue specializing in VFP development, I have to do the marketing. I will never be able to rely on MS for this for any of their development languages. When you think about it, look at what happened with VB and VJ++. Can we (or should we) really rely on MS for anything? - this is the REAL ISSUE.
>
>
>>But I do want to point out that some things - most, in fact - required repeated attempts to get movement. Sending the same message through different mechanisms is also valid and helpful.
>>I agree that SOME in MS know full well what the community at large thinks about MS' 'marketing' of VFP. But it is quite clear that the person(s) THAT MATTER don't yet get the message. Maybe, in one of the incessantly repeated attempts to get the message through, something will "click" and those persons will wake up.
>>
>>Finally, it can't hurt to tell them again this way. It's not like anyone has been asked to invest a ton of time for little chance of return - a simple 'you can add my name to your list' reply to one of the various forums where this has been posted, or even a "ditto" on one already stating the same - is not my idea of hardship.
>>That is the source of my wonderment and it remains so despite your response.
>>
>>JimN
>>
>>
>>>>I just reviewed the vote list. I noticed, sadly, that none of the 'esteemed' have voted (not that those who have voted aren't valuable, but you know what/who I mean).
>>>>
>>>>I guess that they are generally satisfied with the status quo. It gets me to wondering WHY that would be.
>>>
>>>I don't know if I am one of the 'esteemed' you are talking about, but I'll tell you why I haven't put my name down- because MS already knows how the VFP developer community feels about the product. Even if that letter gets 100 signatures- 1000 or 5000 signatures- what does that show them? That 5000 developers want them to spend more money on marketing. Like they don't know that.