>Hi Craig,
>
>I would come to a point that MS would get rid of VFP either by killing it or selling it off. The argument here is that it take resources to maintain and develop the product but the sales is not great. Looking at the consolidation of code base in MS, like the Office, Windows OS and VS. Even C++ has the dual mode (traditional or CLR mode) why can VFP?

From what I've been told by members of the Fox team, it has to do with the internal coding of VFP. It contains lots of heavily entwined code with lots of globals. It is still, for the most part, the same code used for FPW. This makes it difficult to split the code into both a CLR/non-CLR version.

>The trend is scarry and with VFP out on its own and do not have the confidence >that it would have a health life span.

You're going to be surprised.

>
>Come the next version and VFP still does not have any drastic improvement, I can safely say that it has hit the brick wall, end of the road.

What drastic improvements do you want to see. Keep in mind that what might be a good thing for you could be very bad for other developers.



>Thanks. My 2 cents worth.
>
>Regards,
>Kueh.
>
>