SNIP
>>
>Surely you will not be answering with ASP.NET plus C#/VB.NET plus SQL Server since it remains basically UNPROVEN technology with only glowing POSSIBILITIES as its credentials.
>>
>
>Well...they are proven. There is real work going on. Real solutions have been delivered. To say that .NET is unproven is pure FUD. That said, the tools you enumerate may indeed prove to the optimal/correct choice.

I've gotta tell you, John, that your statement "There is real work going on. Real solutions have been delivered." (as regards .NET) sound more like FUD to me. Especially using the alleged "case study" for CDS Inc. as a yardstick. I can understand that the people working on that feel it is "real work" but the thing is, it ain't even delivered yet. If the current "real work" is basically limited to querying data offline that is actually maintained by other working (non .NET) apps, then I wonder.

>
>
>
SNIP
>Finally, I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your statement "Future technology choices OTOH - should be influenced by the specific tools adopted.".
>>Can you explain it further. It sure seems backwards to me at this point.
>
>Sure...be happy to...
>
>Companies will make the choice about whether to go to the web. That choice should be influenced by the tools available to get the job done..

So if they're already a VFP shop and they are aware of WC or AVFP or ??? (VFP-capable) would you consider that VFP is their "adopted toll" and so they can proceed feeling real good about the future?

cheers