Excellent point Gerry.

cheers

>IMO, VFP may have merit for MS from a simple R&D point of view.
>
>(Post Fox Software) I've seen a number of properties and methods found originally in VFP find their way into other MS products.
>
>I wonder if the CLR found some of its inspiration from the VFP "run time". Java has a VM, but the VFP "virtual machine" may still be faster. .NET is still a slug in many areas; it may benefit from performance features in VFP's runtime. Maybe the "new" (promised) VFP report writer may inherit or inspire similar changes in .NET.
>
>Add a feature to VFP, if it's worthwhile, propogate it.
>
>>>When VFP doesn't make money, then it will die.
>>
>>I've gotta argue that such cannot ALWAYS be the case.
>>There may be compelling reasons for MS to keep VFP around and under development, especially in today's (software) business environment.
>>- ANY reason to retain Windows® as the DeskTop OS and as the server OS is useful given competition and user "mood";
>>- the optics of leaving a large install-base in the lurch would not be good for a LARGE corporation;
>>- .NET still has a way to go before widespread 'acceptance' is clear;
>>- just as IE 'doesn't make money' but is a "pathway" to other revenue-generating products, so VFP is in the same boat and with arguable a wider swath than IE.
>>
>>In any large corporation there is lots more than just 'must make money' that goes into a decision.
>>I will agree, of course, that any decision becomes much easier when a product is profitable.