>Replace is not the right word as they still use some FOX code.

The overall strategy is clear - Fox is getting replaced. Certainly, there are Fox DLL's in place right now - but based on the article - the long-term strategy does not consist of keeping them around. With the VFP Toolkit for .NET - I suspect that it would not be *that* difficult to migrate those VFP COM Components to .NET Components.

>
Further there is a lot to say about this article as others have said (e.g. RickS). For example it does not get quite clear why they did it ?
>

Walter - does it really matter *why* they migrated. The article does state that it was a stand-alone Fox app that they wanted to migrate to the web. As I see it, there were several choices. They could have gone VFP/West-Wind, Java, ASP, .NET, etc. From a strategic standpoint - if somebody wanted to port their app to the web - I would have a difficult time suggesting Fox+West Wind. With all due respect to Rick - West Wind is still Fox - and it is getting more difficult to find Fox Talent. I understand that some of the local gentry here may not like me saying that - but that has not stopped me before. While it may be in a Fox Developer's best interest to tell a client to stick with Fox - it is more likely than not - not in the best interest of the client to stay in Fox - particularly if the app is going to be web-based. People are too hard to find and it is clear that MS is not innovating the product in any meaningful way. The real choice for this company was .NET vs. non-MS technologies. Strategically - there is a laundry list of reasons why this company made the right choice.

>
Just a case study ? what exactly were they trying to achieve. It all seems vague to me.
>

All due respect Walter - but I think there is a fair amount of bias here in evaluating the article. If a company had migrated from .NET to VFP - would you ask why? Would you be so critical? I don't think you or many others would be so questioning of the motives as it would comport with your own agenda. This is not a politically correct thing I am saying - but it is the truth. The only thing that makes me different is that I have the temerity to say it - as reckless as that may seem.

>I agree it outlines the bad popularity of VFP at MS though.

It has nothing to do with *popularity* per se. It has more to do with strategy and the bigger picture. To some - the big picture is in how you can automate Outlook, or how to generate a PDF, etc. To others - and MS happens to be in this camp - the big picture is in how to get the windows platform into major appliances, cars, game systems, home entertainment systems, etc. Fox is not suited to where MS is aiming. Gone is the day where the desktop is the sole place to deploy an application. Today, apps are deployed on pda's, phones, etc. Again, Fox is not suited to this ever expanding arena of IO devices. Tools like .NET are.

When it comes to MS, Fox, and the Fox Developer, it is not so much that MS and Fox are on different pages. Rather, they are on different planets and solar systems - that is how big the chasim is. And as each day goes by - the market place is following suit - leaving the Fox developer who pegged everything on Fox with his hands in his pocket. There is a reason why a SIGNFICANT amount of the Fox guru community that was around 5 years ago has substantally left the world of Fox Development. The question to ask is not why they left - but why some are staying.