>Hi Peter,
>
>I had my first "real" job programming in "M" (it had just been renamed from MUMPS). It was a great language. Amazing what it could do. I worked for a $100 million software company which used it almost exclusively.
>
>This was 10 years ago. The company has continued to thrive on "M".
>
>In fact, I had no idea that other companies used it! I had thought it was "dead" - it's fascinating to hear that Royal Dutch used it.
>
>I think it proves a point, though. In the end, all that matters is whether the customer's needs are met.

That's the most important thing. Doesn't matter how old or new the tool that does it is.

15 years ago I was using a tool called Advanced Revelation. It was/is based on the Pick sytem, which violated 3rd normal form by allowing "assoicated multi-values" at row - column intersections. It is still more powerful than any current backend I've seen except in one catagory - speed. But, with GHz speeds these days that would no longer be a problem. Many of the companies that I computerized using that tool are still using it today. One of my services back then was teaching the client how to program using RBasic, so they could build on the framework I designed for them. Without exception those that continue to do their own modifications and maintainence are the ones who refuse to the leave the tool because they do not want to give up control.
JLK

>Is their business running better? Is it more profitable because of your software? Are it's long-term prospects somehow enhanced by your product? If yes, then it doesn't really matter too much what the solution was. "M" solved many a company's problems extremely effectively, and it still does.



>
>What will happen to VFP? Who knows. Can't concern myself with that. There are problems to solve, and VFP is the best tool. Will it still be around in 10 years? I wouldn't even bet that .Net will be around in 10 years. Who the heck knows? I didn't think "M" would make it another 10 - it did.