Hi Tom,

Both posts you've just made (this one and the other one replying to Bret Hobbs - actually you did three posts...) arise once more those interesting questions about VFP future:

- This one about what is really happening with FoxPro's future in terms of evolution and, yes, I agree with you when you call VFP 8 as version 3.4 (one thing that imediatelly comes to mind is DBF evolution);

- The one to Bret (when you say: "I have proven the value of using Visual FoxPro for major projects but management will not allow Visual FoxPro to be used!") tells a lot about current VFP acceptance.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Fernando

PS. Some guys like Steve are developing a different approach when dealing with those changes that are taking place in the development tools scenario, IMHO, and I like that.

>I enjoyed this post especially the part from Steven Black. I would use the word “vision” rather than “version”! Vendors and in particular Microsoft is famous for its “visions”. They attempt to steer the industry and users so they can sell more product. The “vision” held by Microsoft is increased profits and control of the IT industry.
>
>If you or I had delivered an application to a customer and the customer wanted a few additions we would easily do what was required. It would not be necessary to write an entire new application because one or two changes (or even more) were made. We would not charge the client for a new application plus the requested new features.
>
>The last “radical” change to FoxPro was when VFP 3.0 came out. Since then as far as I am concerned you could have released a few service packs to get us to where we are today!
>
>Some software houses I have worked for would call what Microsoft calls a “new version”, a maintenance release! So I thing the present version of VFP should be V 3.4!