Hi John

I remember a 'bonus' session at a devcon a few year back where the VFP team wanted to get input from the attendees about what they wanted to have in the next version. After many (most?) of the suggestions the reply from the VFP team was 'will that help us sell more copies of VFP? So there is absolutely no doubt that they (MSFT) must always calculate the cost against the sale, but then again that is only natural.

>>
>I'm hard-pressed to recall any feature we've shot down for budgetary reasons.
>>
>
>Are you kidding???? This is one of main reason why things do not get done. For example, COM Debugging. Technically, it can be done. Would it come at the expense of other things - and thus put the product in the red? That is likely the reason why that feature never made it into the product.
>
>>
>Almost always, it's one of two issues that cause a feature to be liked but not implemented: Research indicates that it may destabilize or change legacy behavior or it's something that can be easily done now through other means.
>>
>
>COM Debugging does not fit into either of those two categories. It is somewhat of a moot point now - but 4-5 years ago when the feature was added -it was at that point in time the feature should have been added.
>
>And not to put too fine a point on it - there is a vested interest in not making the product TOO attractive to the existing user base. After all, if the user base got everything it wanted - there would be less incentive to move on.
>
>Be extremely careful about articulating reasons why some features get in and other don't. At the very least, those reasons have to pass the smell test.
>
>< JVP >