>MArk,
>
>>Just for argument's sake, how in the hell can anyone justify saying that the right tool for the job can no longer be the right tool for the job because it will no longer be supported by the mfg?
>
>We are starting with next-generation development. It would be silly for us to start out with a tool that is on its last version. Java, for example, would make much more sense because it is newer and yet mature enough to get the job done (or at least that is the theory...)
>
>>MS has discontinued support for FP DOS 2.6, but I still have apps running just fine. Does that make me an idiot for making the decision for providing my customers with a FPD 2.6 app just becaus MS no longer supports it? I hardly think so.
>
>Yes, but would you start new, enterprise-wide development in Fox 2.6? I sure wouldn't, and wouldn't think less of my superiors for making a similar decision.
>
>>These managers are idiots for even considering such criteria. The only thing that matters is that whatever development they need winds up producing a product that works even if Visual Notepad is needed to make it happen.
>
>I don't think my managers are idiots. I think thay have been potentially mis-informed by MS officials who should have known better, and I am acting to remedy that.
>
>I didn't want this to turn into a bash on our tool-choice methodology or the state-of-mind of those making the decision -- those are moot points. I am simply striving for accuracy as we move forward without toolset selection.
>
>Thanks,
>JoeK

No, you missed my point. Making a decision to not use the best tool for the job just because your management has been inofrmed that some version released 18 months in the future might be the last release is ludicrous.

The IDE of VB has radically changed with .NET, but I would certainly not foresake using VB6 to create a critical control just because MS sometime in the future will no longer be supporting VB6. What if I can not use VB.NET to create a control with the same functionality as I can in VB6? With your management, I would be screwed, and ultimately so would their project.

The point is that future support is irrelevant with respect to creating a product that does its job. You use the best tool for the job regardless if the development tool's future. If VFP 7 was absolutely the last release, I would still use it for the stuff I am doing now and quite possibly 2 years from now unless MS or some other mfg provided a better tool.

Your management is sacrificing the use of a best tool for a particular job and going with a work around based on the information from a field op. How smart is that?