Kevin,
SNIP
>
>So answer me this, John, if MS aren't going to promote VFP to non-VFP developers, then why continue until VFPx, and then (if I'm right on this) drop a bombshell? Why string it out so VFP developers stick with Fox, only to be told one day - "Sorry! No more fox". Why don't they give any indication that this is what they want?
>
>As far as I can see, this is the way it's heading!

Sure VFP is headed to the casket - like any other product or being just as soon as it is born.

Like any other programming language though, it cannot just be booted into oblivion, at least not while the company that makes it is still a going concern and profitable. C is still with us. COBOL is still with us. dBASE is for all intents and purposes gone, but then so is its company (if only by devious means).

MS may one day announce the end of VFP, but before (or as) they do they will also have to have a credible, sensible and practical migration tool/path.

And even on that day, VFPx will continue to run and be useful in the development of useful applications for years beyond that!

I *do* see VFP declining because there is no obvious mechanism in place to grow the developer base. Some companies will take care of this by in-house and hands-on training but for most this is just too expensive of a proposition. I sure would like to see some wy for the VFP developer base to be expanded. But that is really a different issue than the outright 'killing' of VFP as a product.

I also feel that JVP has made his point over and over and over again. We all know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, John's position on the future of VFP.
It is now time for him to cease inserting the same old forecast into any discussion on the demise/decline/future of VFP and to let those who want to try to stem the tide to have a say that get more than an immediate put-down by him.

cheers

>
>Kev