David,

>Perhaps he was thinking more of FP DOS legacy apps. Think of this situation. A hypothetical company has a great software package written in FoxPro DOS 2.6 which has been a market leader in its niche vertical market. It has been a cash cow for several years, but because of technical challenges has become a dog.

< SNIP >

Sigh. You can speculate on "what he was thinking" all you want. You can also devise a scenario where the language/platform is important. To expand on my original comment, IME buyers (sophisticated or otherwise) look for the following, in this order:

1. Does it do the job?
2. Is it proven and reliable?
3. Can I get support?

Language/platform is somewhere below that. IOW you switch platforms to help with 1, 2, 3 (,...), not for its own sake.

>I don't get the "platitudes" part of your comments. I thought the article was well-thought out and well-written, and made some very important points about looking to the future and not pinning your hopes (and livelihood) on yesterday's technology.

Perhaps I should just throw that back at you so you can tell me what parts you thought fresh and original, rather than commonplace and trite.

"Cows don't live forever, and you can't get milk (or cash) from a dog."? The reference to "Casablanca"? Puhleeese...

Well thought-out? The "compatibility and standards" comment in my original message is one hole. How about "Even if you don't need .NET per se, you do need the new framework that the world is going to." Just what is that framework? Java? Open Source? He sure hasn't thought that through.

I agree, he did touch on some important points. But ask yourself, would a "sophisticated buyer" be swayed by reading this piece?

>
>I think it would be a serious mistake to "alert" on the guy's mention of Fox and miss the main points of the article.

Are you implying I did?