>
You talk prior about Fortune 10 companies. Let's allow that, except for isolated instances, the very large majority of Fortune 1000 (yes, not just 10) companies are not inclined to use VFP.
>That still leaves tens of thousands of companies in the U.S., and far more in the rest of the world. These companies do not have the budgets or staff expertise to adopt every latest and greatest technology that is hyped from day-to-day. No doubt most are envious and wish they could, but the more sane among them realize on reflection that being on the "cutting edge" generally is the "bleeding edge" where promise doesn't materialize but havoc and cost surely does.
>

No doubt that there are a lot smaller fish than bigger fish. Of the tens of thousands of companies that remain, those that don't have huge budgets, etc. will probably not adopt .NET anytime soon. Rather, they will continue to use the tool they have been using; whether it be VB or VFP. In the end, it does not provide promise the VFP market can grow.

The fact is, the VFP community, at least a good chunk of it, resents being pigeon holed in the "small/medium" size market. The belief is that VFP can and should be able to play in the enterprise space. Technically, this is true. From the perspective of I/T decision makers that are architecting systems with project budgets in the tens of millions of dollars, the very market that MS is going after, VFP is not seen as a credible solution. I agree that VFP will still be a factor, but it is not going to be more of a factor than it is now. Markets grow or die, there is no third direction.

It is not like VFP's fortunes were determined when .NET came on the scene. Before .NET, the news was not very good either.


>You claim that there is .NET expertise out there today. Truly, I have a real problem seeing how that could be! I'll grant you that there are many out there who know how to get around in .NET and can deliver specific things in .NET. I don't, though, qualify those capabilities as "expertise".
>Much has been written about the paucity of .NET documentation and the quality/accuracy of what documentation there is. Given this situation, how can anyone be accredited with the capability to well and properly exploit the .NET framework???
>This thing is so big and it is still growing and this is touted as a major reason for the state of documentation on the subject. Under these circumstances how can anyone possibly have what it takes to properly exploit .NET???
>I see anyone delivering .NET today as delivering, at best, a Wright Flyer while the marketing suggests that .NET can deliver a Concorde/747 class of plane.
>It may happen one day, but first .NET will have to stabilize, then it will have to be documented, then best-practises will have to be discovered and documented. Then, and only then, can .NET have any chance at all of delivering on its promise.
>

I think you discount a lot of the work many have undertaken to learn .NET. From my perspective, I would consider myself an expert VB 6 developer. Today, I know for a fact that I could deliver the same types of apps in VB .NET. I know this from the work I have already done. Significant work can be undertaken without delivering apps per se. Would I be fully optimize the .NET environment now? Probably not since I learn quite a bit as each day goes by. But then again, there is not a body of evidence to support the premise that I am not optimizing the environment.

I think you and others here will be surprised just how much work is being done with the product. I have first hand knowledge of at least one company who has devoted millions already and is quite happy with the results...