>>
>>I forgot to add that the UT is probably the sole reason why VFP continues to remain actively used by so many programmers. Without UT Visual FoxPro would have died at VFP3 when Microsoft stopped advertising it.
>
>The UT is great but let's not kid ourselves about VFP's demise without it. You have no basis of fact to back up that statement. Most VFP developers don't even know about, care about or USE the UT (unless the UT has 250,000 active members!)

"Most"? And then you pull 250,000 VFP programmers out of your hat!
Have you forgotten the summary of programming jobs available in the US, sorted by language, as found on dice.com? Let me refresh your memory. Yes, I know, this is not an exhaustive sample, but it is a broad one. Also, it doesn't reflect the current market turn down, but it does give approximate ratios.

Language Jobs
C++ 38,540
Java 29,545
VB 13,321
Lotus Notes 1,838
Delphi 456
VFP 241

These numbers don't support the idea that VFP is a widely used tool.
Notice that only 241 jobs were opened in VFP compared to 13,321 for VB. That's 55 to 1 for VB and 165 to 1 for C++. If there are 3 million VB programmers "out there" then there are only 54,545 VFP programmers. If you assume 15 million VB coders then about 250,00 VFP coders exist. Do you think that VB coders make up 18% of the US population, or 2% of the First World?

A vast hord of PROFESSIONAL VFP progammers who supposedly exist ""out there" and do not know about UT IS a myth. If I were to guesstimate what percentage of VFP programmers (whose full time job is using VFP, not weekend warriors) use UT I would put it at over 90%. A little less than 30 thousand are registered with the UT.

BTW, Craig, if you think my previous extrapolation was extreme see this interesting read:
The Alexandria Effect
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-18-009-20-OP