Hey Charles, I wish you as much success as you can stand. And thanks for your contributions to both the UT and VFE worlds!

>I have to agree that if I were advising a yong person right now what to learn to have a future in app development, it would be .NET because they probably need a job and by the time they could do anything useful with it as an independant there would be .NET 2.0 etc. If MS says it's the future, it's the future - it is just that the future may change so one has to get the timing right.
>
>I don't think MS cares particularly about moving VFP developers. Why bother? We support a product they were able to use to hone the OOP of MS products and we are self-supporting. Many of us will adopt .NET in addition to VFP because it will do things Fox doens't do.
>
>I just come at this from my own slant, which is that the best thing about computers is they offer a wonderful way to be self-employed and Fox developers in particular have a great opportunity given the strengths of the tool. So if someone wants to keep VFP as their primary/only dev tool perhaps they should be examining their personal business model and not depend on employment by IT departments or dev shops that dictate tools.
>
>Your point is well taken that if your interest is in getting a job it is very smart to have the skill set the people who are hiring want.
>
>I guess what triggered my response is that so often I see messages from skilled VFP developers who are unhappy in their job, underpaid, and scared to death about the future of VFP. I just think often they are looking the wrong direction for the solution - a different job, "pressuring" Microsoft to make their boss use Fox etc.
>
>>This is all good stuff you've written Charles. Thanks. However, my statement was a sarcastic stab at Ken's list of negative hallucinations -- I paraphrase them: "this thread hasn't said move from VFP", "Microsoft has never said move from VFP", "I've never said move from VFP."
>>
>>Now, unless you think that a UT thread, MS, and/or Ken mean more than the reality of the VFP job market (your independant success excluded, good for you!) or that almost no universities teach VFP, it is fair to suggest one may be myopic & cloistered in thinking there no problem in VFP-land. I don't believe for a moment that you'd advise your kid, if entering college/programming, to make sure a pure over all that VFP material.
>>
>>I'm the "the 58 Club" and VFP has already had it's day in the sun. And actually it was called "FPD 2.6." I'll always remember it fondly -- like my girlfriend in highschool. Call it "getting savvy" or "bleeding edge", it still will ultimately mean "move from VFP."
>>
>>>Not sure if it is MS that is cloistered or myopic. Their goal is to maximize profits for shareholders and and have a strategic vision of where they want to take *their* company. They've made the decision that VFP is a nice product, deserving of resources commensurate with the revenue it generates. And that is working out, as far as delivering new versions, etc, but it is not part of their strategic plan to evangelize for VFP.
>>>
>>>That being said, as Fox fans, we can make out own decisions about our business model. "Employment" may not be the way to go for highly skllled fox developers. I do know that self-employed consultants who use foxpro's great strengths to solve business problems for clients who do not dictate tools are making a potload of money and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>>Both Steve Black and Rod - both of whom I respect highly - make perfectly valid points : Rod says it is a very good idea to get savvy with .Net. Of course he's right. Steve says: don't rush to start programming .NET for a living - you don't need to be on the bleeding edge of this one - and of course he's right too.
>>>
>>>There is plenty of money to be made right now with VFP and down the road when there are good developer tools and training for .NET - by people who've actually used it to write, deploy and version apps - as Steve points out - a good OOP oriented VFP developer who has been learning .NET at his own pace - will be able to add .NET to his tools and deliver even more powerful apps - having the ace-in-the-hole of VFP.
>>>
>>>Is knowing VFP the best way to get a *job* - of course not. Hasn't been for quite a while. Can you make very good living with VFP as your primary tool - you betcha.
>>>
>>>I say this as one who saw VFP 3.0 as a beta,not to actually be used for delivering apps, and used it to learn OOP. I never shipped a VFP app until VFP 6.0 was out and VFE 6.0 was in beta and clinets never complained.
>>>
>>>I think tryihng to control MS is a fool's errand. Realizing where they are coming from and adjusting out own business model accordingly is just good survival skills.
>>>
>>>As I've often said, I've make a *lot* more money off Microsoft than Microsoft has ever made off me. < s >
>>>
>>>
>>>> Very good observations -- in their own totally myopic & cloistered little way. Meanwhile, out here off "campus" (i.e. the job market), there are numerous reminders that VFP developers had better move to *something*...assuming, of course, that we like employment. Perhaps Tom Bellmer's concerns are best understood in this context and need not be refuted...assuming, of course, that Tom likes employment, too? Tom?
>>>>
>>>>Steven-