Denis.....

Why would you expect MS - under any circumstance - to actively promote VFP over .NET?

Are there situations where VFP is preferable over .NET? Sure.

BUT - and this is a big but....

Are the reasons why VFP is preferable intrinsic or extrinsic to VFP? And - if you went back a few years ago and asked a VB developer which tool was preferable - almost without exception - you would get 1 response - VB.

I recall Drew Speedie saying to a group more than once that he always had the response for any question regarding which tool was right for the job. The answer was VFP. His point was valid to the extent that you could accomplish just about anything with VFP. That may not be as true today as it was in the days when PDA's, cell phones, etc were not as pervasive as they are today. Of course, as valid as his point was then - it was still a bit myopic to the extent that technological blinders were put on. Clearly, the developers who opted to expand their skill sets did reap and continue to reap rewards today. They are far less likely to be the ones scratching and clawing for work. Put another way, they are not dependent on VFP-only work.

I am sure the "usual suspects" will chime in and tell me once again that my point is known and that there is no reason for me to comment on posts like yours. My only response to that is that comments like yours are known and that there is no reason for them.

The bottom line is this...yes - in the opinions of many - VFP is peferrable to .NET. The important thing to remember is that it is only an opinion - it is not a fact. Given a set of requirements - somebody biased towards .NET will prefer .NET and somebody biased towards VFP will prefer VFP. It is purely a matter of opinion. One of the key differences today is that clients have an opinion on the matter - much more so than a few years ago. It used to be that cleints for the most part - did not care what language was used to write their custom software. While that may still hold water in some cases - it by no means is as universal rule as it once was.

MS has a clear strategy - to be the vendor of the most pervasive computing platform on the planet. The keys to selling the platform are applications and tools. .NET is dialed directly into the platform - both today and tomorrow. VFP cannot make that same claim. .NET and its progeny will be what supports MS's overarching strategy. VFP will not. Of course, MS does not need to go out of its way to tell VFP developers that. What is important is not so much what is said - but what is not said. Ken's response to you speaks volumes - if you read between the lines a bit. In plain language, he pretty much told you that any marketing involving VFP would be in the context of how .NET AND VFP could be used together. On one hand - Ken does say that developers can and should choose the right tool for the application. IMO - and with all due respect to Ken - that is at least a little disengenous. Again - MS wants people in .NET - and that includes VFP developers. Didn't Ken really say that in his response to you? Isn't that what Ken basically said with respect to how if at all - VFP would be marketed? Should this come as a surprise today? Should it be a mystery?

It is passive-aggressive at its best. That is what MS does - and they are very good at it. On one hand - they will tell you there is choice. But implied in every message - is the push - sometimes ever so gentle - to go toward the light - I mean .NET!! < bg >.

Last point - MS does not need help with marketing VFP - or any other product for that matter. That is not to say they don't make mistakes - they do. That said, the most succesful companies and people are those that make the most mistakes. If MS wanted to market VFP - it would. At almost the close of 2003 - why do you continue to ask questions that you almost certainly know the answer to????