JVP

As one who has long advocated VFP as a tool of choice, last weekend I attended a meeting where our company decided to standardise on dotNET in the medium to long term. This overturns pressure from funders to demonstrate a Java version of our core product.

In the short term we will rapidly convert existing VFP functions to SOAP-style interfaces properly configured for consumption by whatever.

Medium term we are looking closely at CLR languages to decide if and when we should translate. So far the answer is "look but don't leap".

With ADO.NET, for the first time I think it might possibly be as profitable to develop stuff we need as it would be using VFP. We could be boring and argue again about RVs etc (please no!) but overall I'm satisfied we can make the same $. So we're thinking about it.

You seem concerned that some people will become "hermits" by refusing to respond to the dotNET Microsoft path you describe accurately.

Well, there are some happy FP2.5 hermits out there and there will be some happy VFP Fat Client who keep using local tables forever. We need them. Sometimes Hermits are useful for a "sanity check" when the world goes mad and we forget what really matters. They might even be right.

FWIW, Microsoft is completely supportive of our company strategy including the VFP part.

Not everybody agrees about dotNET- see http://www.vnunet.com/News/1127410 - but I've looked at this carefuly and feel satisfied.

As for CLR languages; IMHO that damned ; is a step backward towards arcane Z80 Assembly Language, in 2001 we should be able to express what ; means a little more obviously. No I don't want to argue about that!

Regards

JR