>
My thoughts are that the comment was more geared towards legacy xBase and not VFP at all.
>

I think you make this inference because he threw xbase and Fox together - and further, he said Fox and not VFP.

My counter is this...

1. Fox is VFP and VFP is Fox. Look at Whil Hentzen's editorial in the Dec 2001
FoxTalk. In it, he refers to VFP as Fox in many places. People do this all
of the time.

2. Assuming you are correct, he does mention VB. Considering VFP's relative
position in the world compared to VB (which is way behind from the start) -
what makes you think VFP is different?

I understand what your thoughts are, but could you point to something tangible in the article that causes you to make this inference? I contend that your position is coloring your objectivity.