Hi Perry,

A few points to consider:

First, about VFP books, I am aware of book projects beyond Hentzenwerke so what you say about publishers will not be true for long. Also, I just checked several other online booksellers (Fatbrain, Chapters.ca, BN.com) and all list the full collection of VFP 6 and VFP 7 books. Moreover, given what I consider to be the excellent quality and the technical breadth of the available VFP books, I just don't see the state of VFP books to be indicative of downsides and, given what I know but cannot divulge, if anything it's tending towards upsides in this area.

Second, about conferences, the number of VFP conferences is not shrinking as you suggest. Consider first that in North America the VFP conference scene is very crowded to begin with. Dev Connections dropped VFP from their May conference due largely to post 9/11 general cutbacks and, given the crowded conference space, focusing on new technologies is seen as less risky attendance-wise. I have no doubt that Dev Connections will put on future VFP conferences because when VFP has been scheduled with concurrent VB/SQL/Access conferences, VFP has been a large part of the conference. Moreover, considering http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~VFPConferenceAttendance, we're seeing pretty steady year-to-year aggregate numbers of 3000+ attendees for the major conferences. Also consider that there's a new conference this year (http://essentialfox.com) which replaces the FoxTeach conference, and there may be another conference announcement soon which actually means that for 2002 we'll have one more conference than 2001, not fewer.

Third, I attend a lot of meetings with a lot of companies, and it seems to me that we're constantly discussing and weighing the limitations of development environments. This is natural evolution and revolution as organizations grow and as systems mature. I wouldn't read too much into attending meetings where VFP limitations are discussed. If your firm has an installed mature technology X, then you will naturally tend to be discussing the limitations of X. This may lead to introduction of new technology Y, and that means that soon the idioms and limitations of technology Y will be on the agenda. I'm not saying that VFP doesn't have problems, just that what you've conveyed isn't news, and isn't indicative of problems with VFP as much as it's indicative of an impedence mismatch between needs and current solutions.

Fourth, if we look at the continuum of database applications, VFP occupies a range of solutions, and within that range lies a smaller range where VFP can be an optimum solution. We can have interesting discussions about how wide these ranges are, but I think we can all agree that VFP isn't suited for the high end ranges where Oracle and DB2 live, and below that where SQL Server lives. Nobody seriously disputes this. Of course, when you get into this range, nobody will be suggesting a move to VFP data, as you lament. This is not news, and is not indicative of the quality of VFP as a development environment or data environment. VFP is great within its range of applications and solutions. To imply that VFP isn't great at all ranges, therefore VFP's in the dumper, well that's just plain silly.

Fifth, the software development situation is differnet in North America than it is in Europe. I've done a lot of business in Europe over the past decade, and my contacts there are not reporting more or less downside news and scuttlebutt than usual. This is admittedly anectdotal, but clearly most of the past prognostications about the death of VFP are not coming to pass very quickly, if at all.

Finally, as a software engineer, I can understand that people (including myself) get attached to what they know and what they've had past successes with. Still, let's not put too much stock in arguments based on anecdotal evidence that are linearly extrapolated to wider conclusions.

I fiercely reject arguments like those that JVP spouts, which you seem to agree with, that those who disagree with his simple and limited world view are over-emotionally attached, or fear losing "ego" as a result of technological change. I have a natural viceral aversion to people who profess to see the future, and who offer software engineering advice based on ad-hoc experience, folkloric knowledge, and worse, little or no knowledge or insight into the applications and needs of those seeking the advice. He's constantly distilling complex software engineering decisions into seemingly simple choices. There's a word for that <s>.


**--** Steve



>Walter,
>
>I've always wondered about some of your prior arguments here. It now seems to me that your arguments are highly based on emotions.
>
>>
>>Errr, replacement ? why ? VFP isn't going anywhere anytime soon. VFP has got some very unique characteristics when it comes to data handling. VS.NET is not going to change this. It is my honest believe that if you're looking for ultimate power off a dataengine VFP will be unbeatable for a lot of years to come. Maybe if you don't require a powerfull dataengine it may be an alternative, but why should you, if VFP serves you well, why abandon it ?<
>
>VFP is going anywhere anytime soon??? I didn't know you were in a position to make that decision. Maybe you are not aware of the situation, being based in the Netherlands. VFP is the only computer product I know of where you have to go to a specific place (Hentzenwerke and now Amazon also) to buy books on the topic. VFP may be powerful, but it has been loosing major market share every year for at least the last 5 years. Even this year the number of VFP Devcons has shrunk. There has been a very serious decline in the number of VFP jobs in the US over the last 5 years also. Given these realities you have to seriously question the long term viability of the product.
>
>>
>>This has nothing to do with VS.NET. CR can be intergrated into VFP very much the same way as with VS.NET.
>>
>
>>
>>As I posted before, If you're thinking that SQL-server /MSDE/ORACLE can replace all the characteristics and advantages of a the VFP engine, dream on. First of all the VFP engine is free, freely distributable and very lightweight. Further it has no DB limit and scales up to sevaral hundreds of users. Also, some of the xBase record oriented commands have no equivalent in set oriented DBMS like MSDE. If you're fond of optimizing applications by using good old SEEK(), KEYMATCH(), SET FILTER, SET ORDER TO, SET RELATION, SET KEY TO etc, you'd better think twice before throwing away the VFP dataengine.
>>
>
>The reliability that SQL Server/Oracle brings to the table, as well as the enhanced level of security far outweighs the cost difference to many, many companies. I don't know what the economic climate is in the Netherlands right now, but I can assure you that even with the economic downturn in the US you don't here of stories of companies junking any of the big DBMSs to go with VFP. You might here of people switching from Oracle to DB2 or to SQL Server, but I've never heard of anyone switching to VFP.
>
>As far of record oriented commands, have you ever written anything in TSQL or PL/SQL or know what they are?????
>
>
>
>>Johns, mistake is that he thinks that VFP has no characteristics that have an advantage over VFP. He clearly underestimates the power of VFP in the data arena. Futher he ignores the tremendous investments in code (e.g. frameworks) people have in VFP. Well go out and throw it all away ! Unless, maybe like john, you don't have invested much into code and frameworks.
>>
>
>Sorry, but I've yet to be in a meeting where someone says "VFP has sooooo much power. How can we talk about switching?" I have been in several meeting, especially lately, where the discussion is about what the next jump should be to get past some of VFPs limitations.
>
>
>>Of course there is still a lot to do in VS.NET to become what Microsoft says it becomes. Also we've to wait and see what the competition has to offer. Maybe well be developing Delphi (kylix) on linux in about 5 years. VS.NET is not out yet and the early adopters of VS.NET will likely have more problems working with the product than those who can sit and wait and make that decision when a bit more is proven.
>>
>>John can yell and shout, but as long as there are no compelling, interesting products and competative (in your branche) products written with VS.NET, nothing is proven. I like to remember you of OS/2 which was technically superiour over Windows 95, well we know the story about that.
>>
>>Walter,