>
The vast majority of those 33 hits aren't .NET at all. Most of those are ".NET would be a plus" category and it's VS 6 work.
>

I simply used .NET as a search terms and it gave 33 hits. Of the 33, yes, not all relate to VS, but a bunch do. VB.NET was in the results as well as VS .NET. Nothing fabricated here...

FWIW, .NET Framework yielded 3 results, and yes, C# yielded 179 results. IAC, the point that there are few Fox opportunities relative to other things is made and is valid. Therefore, nothing is fabricated. Nice try...


>In other words, you didn't check your results before publishing them. Clearly on Dice .NET matches "network" and "Internet" and a slew of things that have nothing to do with .NET. So it's not 33, it's less than 10.
>

I simply gave you the search terms and the # of hits. It was not an exaustive excercise. Still, if I spent more time culling through things, some #'s would change but the same basic point would not change - less Fox opportunities to other things...

>
FWIW, "Object Oriented" gets 22 hits in PA on Dice.COM. "Object Oriented AND .NET" (with Advanced -> boolean parsing selected, which appears to give more correct results) is 3 hits in PA on Dice.
>

Right, and Object Oriented + FoxPro or Object Oriented + VFP gets 0 results.


>
Also FWIW, a seach of C# in PA on Dice.com comes up with 79 jobs!!!!!. Yet only one of the first 30 hits I briefly scanned is clearly for C#. The rest are all for C and C++. Therefore it appears the "#" character isn't significant on Dice.com, just like the "." in ".NET" doesn't appear to be significant either.
>

C#.NET yielded 8 hits, C Sharp yielded 1 hit. And FWIW, VB yielded 50 hits, SQL Server yielded 68 hits. SQL Server + VB yielded 13, SQL Server + Visual Basic yielded 19, SQL Server + FoxPro and SQL Server + VFP yield 0 hits.

Get the idea???


>Keep it real.

I have, and in spite of the seemingly material gaffe you found, it does not change the basic point that few Fox opportunities relative exist relative to other tools. And of the Fox opportinities that exist, the descriptions indicate work that is not that exciting relative to other things.

And for the record, I did encourage folks to look at the job descriptions for specifics...

So, how about you keeping it real. Just take on the basic point I have made here and refute that. Any way you cut it, Fox opportunities are waning...