><<
>For example, the demand for programmers in that language (market saturation);
><<
>
>An often overlooked point. As I have said time and time again, the business/finance sector dictates what happens. Initially, the technical concerns have to be addressed. In other words, can the tool do the job. If regardless of what resources are put behind the tool it cannot do the job - you cut the analysis right then and there. But, after you have determined that there is technical feasibility and from a business/financial perspective it makes sense, you then have to see again whether the technical feasibility is still there given the financial constraints. So with respect to the technical realm, it is a two-pass process at least..
>
>Having said this, if the demand for programmers is low - or if the supply is low, that one factor may lead people to make a change in spite of the technical superiority of a tool. Applying this, if I wanted to use VFP but could not find talent and VB was technically feasible - but not quite as good as VFP and I know that I will not run into a supply problem, VB will win the race.
>
>It really is a blinding flash of the obvious that people who get buried in the technical details often miss - or often cannot comprehend. The cry is always "My development tool has full OOP capabilities and has been technically better for a long time. Why isn't it accepted???" This totally bypasses key factors that go into the decision making process. To understand it and still ignore it is nothing short of denial - which is in great supply around here...
>
>This issue and the reasoning I have put forth here is one of the two major factors I have put forth for VFP's demise in the world at large. Could the problem be counteracted? At this point probably not -assuming MS actually wanted to address the issue. For one thing, it would conflict with the .NET message - something that would cause one to be tarred and feathered for suggesting such a scheme at MS..

Excellent points, John. For those who want facts to back up your argument, the history of computing from its early days on is full of examples of tools (hardware and software) that are superior from a technical point but lost out. I've said it many times before, but I will say it again -- business arguments almost always beat out technical arguments.