Craig,

Well, now with VFP7 out of the way. I would think that it is the time for the VFP team to take a hard look at revamping the internal codes and untangle the old codes. I know it is very difficult to rewrite things from scratch but it is worth the effort as you would be able to take on new challenges without the constrain. A good example is Win2k, it is a rewrite but kept most backward compatibility but not all. Some people are disappointed but it did bring out more benefits and the drawbacks. It is the most stable OS from MS in the last 20 years.

Regards,
Kueh.


>>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.
>>
>>