Hey Fernando, long time !

I won’t argue your comments (implying interesting discussions as ever ...). A few re’s though :

>VFP is loosing its (original) identity and becoming, day after day, obsolete and less competitive, albeit the new "improvements", IMO. All features that where great strengths in the past (like the DBF and its DML) means nothing for the corporate market, these days.
<
On your last sentence you nail some of the problem. In the initial message I wanted to say that VFP should come with MSSQL or better, the other way around. When this would be the case, I don’t think the debates on the subject would remain. But, I did not write this, because I don’t think MS even can do that. IMO C# is the objective …

>Think another path should be chosen. If MS (soon) don't tell us what VFP will be in the near future (3-5 years?), think we better not wait for the "dry bones" to take an action. FWIW, I don't think they will tell us anything regarding such subject. Start learning another tool (if you didn't it yet) will be the only option left, if *we* want to stay competitive.
<
Your first sentence here tells what I tried to imply. Note my dualism near the end of the initial message. In fact it says : if you (MS) don’t come up with the real status of VFP, I’d like to take over now. For that matter, your solution is different and "destructive". Why learn another tool while we, in fact, are very much satisfied with what we have now ?
We overhere even can’t switch to another tool, and I’d rather sue MS for porting our app to the other environment if it comes to that. Mind you, this world is full of discontinueing apps, leaving the customers with the troubles. But what I have here is at quite another level :
Porting our app to something else may take thousands of man-days, and I’d have to pay for MS discontinueing a product of which they ever and ever tell it stays !? I don’t know how MS thinks, but IMO this is just a sole reason why they won’t discontinue VFP : lawsuits.

Between giving a full support and discontinueing exist a lot of scenarios. We might be somewhere in the middle, shifting towards the right.

If MS in fact wants to get rid of VFP, let them say so, because here is an opportunity. That is, if this community thinks it might be an idea.

Don’t think that MS will come with some kind of an offer, without first being 100 % sure there is an instance willing to take over, and having the capabilities to do so.

If MS is a "sport", please let them tell right now and right here there is no necessity to let us work this out. Right ? IMHO some members of UT, working at MS, have the responsibility of doing something with this message. Without us working this out, right now we could get the message to forget it. But not just like that. With the arguments why.
From now counts, that when I hear nothing to this respect, I know enough. And I even expect that; far enough has been said already, and I don’t see the content of any MS reply change by means of some thread(t) like this. And, in order not to let this thread become a threat indeed, it may be more fair if we are first to have a statement on this.

So that’s what I meant : supposed we’d agree on being able to take over, it’s easy for MS to announce that we were right from the beginning. They can’t do that yet.
For that matter, the previous paragraph can be looked at as not written. But it’s there anyhow.