Does this mean I get to kick your soggy thinking no-ethics butt all over again, Joe Bob?

I have a question for you, JVB. What is the definition of "opportunity cost" and how, for heaven's sake, could opportunity cost ever be zero for anything, nevermind a complete retooling with Version 1 technology?

Oh, I forgot. You have an MBA. You must know what you're talking about.

I think what people should do, therefore, is act based on heresay from people like you with a lot of practical experience on the subject at hand.


**--** Steve


>>
>Thank you for telling us. I was wondering where you had gone? Now with the realization that you stated you would not return to the FoxPro forum, it does not surprise me to see you here. In fact I hope to see you more often.
>>
>
>Michel expressed those same words to me. I'll take it under advisement. If I did start hanging around again, it would definitely be from the standpoint of helping VFP developers make the transition to .NET, should that be what they want. In addition, I would definitely help to evangelize VB in the face of what I see to be misguided reasons for leaning toward C#.
>
>
>>
>Have you been doing any thing of interest with .NET? You do not have to get into details and disclose too much. I some how think you will publish some cool information on that subject as you have done with ADO as an example.
>>
>
>I have a two article series starting in the next issue of Code Magazine. I had a COM/Interop piece in the last issue of Code which Ken showed at Essential Fox. Intrestingly enough, when the link (with my name) was shown, there was a noticable groan from the usual suspects, those that I like to call the vocal minority and the dot Not'ers. Not be negative, but there are those who are hell bent on holding people back. Here is the deal, use VFP for all that it is worth, but at the same time, don't make the mistake of letting this time go by without making the important investment in your own intellectual capital. A certain sombody here, who shall go nameless < bg > - likes to make economic analogies. I'll throw one out here.. there is ZERO opportunity cost in investing in .NET today. Where you have idle time, you should invest it in learning .NET, and specifcally, VB IMO. Still, learning and understanding how C# works is not a bad idea. The idea that you cannot learn and specialize in
>multiple langauges is silly. Still, it is important to recognize where MS is going to invest as far as RAD is concerned. Remember, MS is not interested in making software development an esoteric black art. Unfortunately, that idea does not square with the ideologies of some others. MS is interested in enabling as many people as possible. Quite frankley, that would involve making VB .NET as easy to learn as possible. But you know what??? The art is not in the programming, the art is in the analysis and design. No matter what MS does, being able to analyze and design properly is what separates the artisans from the hacks.
>
>>By the way I think Ken does a good job of justifying his position.
>
>I guess that gets to part of my point, Ken does not have to justify his position to anybody. The fate of Fox was decided long ago. About a year ago, I encouraged folks to find John Hawkins 1993 FPA article which reviewed the Fox merger a year later. Freaking prophetic is about the best way I can describe the article. Also, if you attended the 1993 Devcon in Orlando, none of this should be a surprise. The unified tools strategy was announced and 8 years later, here we are. If you spent time learning OO in VFP, your time was not wasted and you will be rewarded. If however, you did not genericize your knowledge and listen to guys like Egger, Black, etc... then you have a problem. If you didn't listen to guys like me, Paddock, Duffy, etc on remote data and specifcally SQL Server, then again, I think folks are at a decided disadvantage. Still, it is NEVER too late to get on the band wagon.
>
>Interesting observation: Look at this year's devcon in Orlando. By my count, roughly 25% of the content is devoted to pure Fox. The other 75% is devoted to either .NET, SQL Server, or using Fox with either/both of those technologies. If that does not explain loud and clear where things are going, I don't know what does.
>
>Perhaps the best phrase I saw, and I think it was by Steve Sawyer on the Wiki was "Aren't you bored with Fox??" Steve, I may be paraphrasing here, and if I am wrong, my appologies. I think this question/statement is right on.
>
>Folks that bemoan, whine, and complain about the state of Fox need to do at least two things. First, they need to not lay it at Ken's feet. Second, they need to move on...period. The facts are the facts and none of this is to say that Fox has not been a great tool....it has. Jim Booth has a great line...if you wanted a career with no change, dig holes. The technology has remained the same for the past 10,000 years...< bg >...