Michael,

Approximately 5-6 years ago, whenever I would send out resumes, recruiters would let me know that all their foxpro positions were there to help rewrite a foxpro app in something else. This is when I saw a significant drop in the number of Foxpro ads. MS marketing might of had something to do with this. But I don't think that is the only reason.

I have no idea why folks such as yourself just don't face reality that other languages are being used more. It's a fact of life. The arguements I hear are the same ones I heard from the betamax crowd.

VFP will for the rest of time be a niche product. MS is working to preserve that niche, as demonstrated by Ken Levy's comments here. But they are not ever, never, going to try and present VFP into non-VFP markets, such as VB or .Net.

And amazingly enough, I have talked to folks who have used both VB and VFP, and not everyone is as strong in their comdemnation of VB or even .Net.

Imagine how far along you would be in your .Net training if you focused your energy into learning.

PF

>Hypothesis: the "unspoken" reason why Microsoft hasn't promoted VFP is fear of embarassment, first for VB, and now .NET.
>
>Is this a reasonable justification for not marketing VFP? If it's true, then Microsoft has an embarassment of riches, and the perceived "problem" may be solved purely by presentation.
>
>VFP makes it plain that .NET is lacking in certain areas, notably VFP's tight integration with a general-purpose DMBS, and VFP's "dynamicity" (for lack of a better term). And of course VFP's many other general strengths, like speed, power, compatibility/interoperability, a long, solid track record, etc., all compare favorably with .NET. Must the comparison betwen VFP and .NET be hidden like a dark secret, for fear of exposing .NET's shortcomings? Nothing can be allowed to jeopardize .NET!
>
>So the strategy is to wait until the day when .NET version xxx finally catches up to VFP, all the while keeping VFP on a short leash and a tight budget, expecting that eventually, maybe in the next 5 or 10 years, Microsoft can finally expose what's left of VFP and say, "See, you have no more need for this, that's why we never promoted it." Aside from hardship to the FoxPro community, especially the VFP job market, what harm does this ploy really do?
>
>Does it harm Microsoft to keep VFP in the shadows so it can focus 100% of the limelight on .NET? I think so. I believe that only faulty reasoning can justify what amounts to an effort to suppress the truth. No one is going to hide the truth for long. If .NET has shortcomings, better that they should be discussed in the context of a comparison with Visual FoxPro than a comparison with non-Microsoft alternatives.
>
>There's plenty of room for .NET to coexist with VFP, each with its own strengths, and evolving toward some blurred future coalescence. VFP didn't want to be a part of the CLR, but maybe the CLR should evolve to a point of being worthy of VFP. The operative term is "evolution". Microsoft should allow its products to evolve naturally in a real-world environment.
>
>In the real world, when you invest in creating a product and building a loyal customer base, you capitalize on the value you've created, while you've got the chance. This is sound business practice. Let evolution take its course, and the best products will prevail. Contorting the environment, manipulating natural market forces, is not a sustainable strategy for building long-term profits. It's also not considered nice behavior.