Not the point, these tools evolve over some period of time through usage, testing, improvements. If MS doesn't back this in some way, of course it slows everything down. I think it's only fair to give .vfp. developers better options than: use vfp for your old gui app and VS.NET for your web apps. There should be 1.) decent development tools and support for .vfp. web apps 2.) decent interop tools and support for .vfp./.NET apps and 3.) decent migration tools for those that want to go all the way with .NET.
Many people will undoubtedly just rewrite everuthing in .NET. However, many will be so disgruntled over their lack of options that they'll go the PHP/PERL/Apache/Linux route rather than get trapped in this situation again...
>>John, the point is MS and Ken aren't even supporting the basic web services stuff or components or web stuff for vfp. No wonder not as many people are using them. Check out the dwindling web examples in each new version of .vfp. And I would argue that creating web apps is far easier using vfp and existing code and skills that creating a brand new one in .NET.
>>Ken and MS are not promoting them at the conferences and they probably have some input over what gets published in the mags (maybe, maybe not, but advertising dollars pay the bills). I would argue that this plays into the strategy of Ken and MS to get everybody to buy both .vfp. and vs.net. The people who lose, of course, are the developers who would have to spend the time and money rewriting everything. A good middle-ground would be more support for interop between .vfp. and .net ...
>>
>
>
>Two points:
>
>First - prior to .NET - Fox supported web services as well as any other COM dev tool - and yet there was not wide adoption.
>
>Second - Rod Paddock took a straw poll up here to guage how many Fox developers actively use COM Components/Web Services. Results - not many.
>
>< JVP >