Mike,

< snip >

>>Yes (me too, started with FoxBASE+ 2.10), and I'd agree that VFP has a "respectible role" in it. I would say, however, that because of the product's strengths, that role is probably best filled on the desktop. While it's important that VFP be able to "play a bit in other sandboxes", nevertheless, it's on the desktop where it can really shine.
>>
>>In regards to my statement, I stand by it. VFP doesn't make me a good programmer. My abilities at problem solving and system design and implementation, make me a good programmer. As I stated in my original post, Fox was about fifth on the list of languages learned. I was pretty good in those languages too. The statement was basically in response to all the "hand wringing" that goes on about VFP's future. I like the language. It's my language of choice, but if it went away tomorrow, I'd simply pick another tool and go from there.
>
>George,
>
>VFP doesn't make me a good programmer. It allows me to be a good programmer. I doubt that most VFP programmers would be so cavalier about the disappearance of their favorite tool, because there simply is no decent substitute for it, and we're not all so conversant in a multitude of programming environments as you are. There is no easy path for most of us to a comparable mastery of Visual C++, VB, C#, or Java, and there's no quick way to gain more than a decade of experience in yet another major language. I'm not eager to dive into another language for its own sake, nor do I have the time to try out the latest replacement for every Microsoft product I use, unless I want to spend the rest of my life installing and uninstalling software without actually getting any work done. I still find myself marvelling at the great features that were built in the Multics operating system more than 20 years ago, many of which have never been replicated since. Likewise, I'll wager that we won't be
>seeing the huge intellectual investment that has been put into Visual FoxPro suddenly pop in a new language. If VFP is allowed to die, it will be a monumental waste and a loss to the whole world.
>
First, you're confusing my pragmatism with a cavalier attitude. Do I care about VFP's future? Sure, but I'm not going to waste my time worrying about it. Mostly, my job requires the application munge a lot of data. As a result, I use VFP. However, I use VB to test COM objects I've created in VFP, and had to, on one occasion translate VFP's interaction with an ActiveX control in order to prove that there was a problem with it and to get support from the supplier. I've also written stuff in C++, when it was the best way to accomplish something. In fact, that's how my LNKFILES.DLL came into being.

The difference between one language and another is largely in the syntax and the base functionality that the language provides. Fundamentally, all higher level languages contain exactly three programming structures, no more and no less. These are: 1. The assignment statement; 2. The decision making structure; and 3. The iteration structure. Certainly, the most difficult is often learning the new syntax, but, IMO, the real key is in the design and that remains constant regardless of the underlying language. Therefore, I leverage my talents by applying the same design methodology regardless of the underlying language. I've been able to do this in every language (including assembler) that I've worked in.

One of the grossest mis-conceptions about VFP in regards to VB is the how and why VB has a larger market. Saying that it's that: "Bill Gates loves BASIC because his involvement with the Altair at MITS", or "The don't like VFP at MS because it was developed by Fox Software", etc. is pure and utter nonsense.

First, VB is where it is and VFP where it is because of the fundamental differences in the two. VB is a general purpose language, and VFP a specific purpose language. That, in and of itself, lends for a greater market.

Second, long before the existance of the IBM compatible PC, there was a market for home computers that folks like Apple, Commodore and Atari were involved in. All had or came with a BASIC interpreter. More people know BASIC. In fact, in a published interview with Bill G. in the late 1980s, he stated that this was the reason that MS would make a derivative of BASIC as a common macro language.

Given these two facts, is it any surprise that VFP comes off as a "second fiddle"?

Lastly, with all the problems in this world, I can hardly bring myself to agree that if VFP died it'd be a monumental loss to the world.