>George,
>
>>>George,
>>>
>>>>DD,
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you're moving in the correct direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let me ask you a question, also springing from a recent ..erhh.. "active" thread <g>. The one about the CDX size changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't suppose that the changes to the building of the leaf nodes in the CDX was purely by chance, do you? No, of course you don't. Then why? Well, ostensibly to make the CDXs more stable, which in and of itself isn't a bad deal. Yet... If you're going to nudge this little lady into the harsh spotlight of co-existence with SQL then shouldn't you clean out the proverbial closets first?
>>>>>
>>>>>These things don't happen in a vacuumn, now do they.. < eg >
>>>>
>>>>No they certainly don't. Just to add one more "log to the fire", if I wanted to assure VFP's future, if I wanted to assure growth (and sales), if I wanted to put to rest all of the negativity, then I certainly would go in the direction I've indicated.
>>>>
>>>>Now again, and I'm going to mention this in every post on this thread, I don't know anything more than anyone outside the Fox team about this. It's pure, unadulterated guesswork on my part.
>>>
>>>Right.. Me too. However, I think that this is where all these years (since dBase II on CP/M) of watching the product(s) change, grow, mature and so forth gives one what I'd think is a pretty good 'sense' of things. That's what makes me laugh about all the folks who get themselves so worked up over the future of VFP. Look, at some point (like you and me) it's gonna die. Until then (hopefully like you and me) it's going to continue to 'learn' (add features and capabilities) and 'grow'.
>>>
>>>It is such a no-brainer that this in itself is what makes me laugh at the "sky is falling" crowd. Phhtt.. Thanks for telling me once again, like I've heard for at least the last 15 years, that Fox is going to die, now please keep quiet so I can get some of the mountain of Fox-related work done! <g>
>>
>>Double D,
>>
>>You know, as a programmer, I was trained, like I’m sure you and others were, to always consider the worst-case scenario in our designs. It occurs to me that perhaps, since I presented the “best-case” that I should also consider the worst-case.
>>
>>The worst-case is that auto-increment isn’t the “tip of the iceberg”. What does this mean? It moves VFP’s feature set closer to SQL Server’s. This isn’t just a good thing; this is a great thing. By including features from SQL Server, you diminish the differences between an ISAM based RDBMS and a set based one. This certainly allows for easier ports.
>>
>>By moving VFP closer to SQL Server, one other thing is accomplished: Potential marketing strategies. Why not put Fox “back in the box”? Only this time the box is with SQL Server rather than the VS box. Or how about a coupon in the box for VFP at a reduced rate? Campaigns based on a slogan like: “Visual FoxPro, the best tool for creating SQL Server Applications!” Why? < All together now folks > “Nothing runs like a Fox!”
>>
>>You’re right; one day VFP will “go the way of all flesh”. I just happen to believe that it isn't happening anytime soon.
>>
>>Regards,
>
>Exactly! I remember Ricardo's response at one point in the past when someone made the VFP<-->SQL connection. Personally I would agree with you and suggest that this is where we'll find a lot of our future.

As long as it remains a separate product and doesn't evolve into simply a front end for SQL Server. Right now, we have choices. I't like it to stay that way.

>Now if we could just get everyone else to be as smart as we are, huh?
>
><bg>