>>
True, taking the exam won't serve to help make them a better developer, but that never was the case anyway.
>>

Agreed - But that is the case several people are making...


>>
Agreed, it would have had a little more value back then. But, in a small sense getting an MCP status has a similarity to getting an MBA
>>

You are equating an MCP with an MBA?????? Do you have an MBA? I do. And I will tell you that 2 years of business school (which by the way - I was at one of the best ranked part time programs in the country) - is a heck of a lot more valuable than preping for a 50 question exam...

>>
- that is, having that on your resume or advertisement might serve to get your foot in the door when otherwise you would not have been given a second look. That's where the bulk of the benefit lies, isn't it? If passing the exam gets you just one new customer/job, it's paid for itself.
>>

I don't entirely disagree with you - but I still disagree with your point that MCP and MBA are even close to be equivalent where they can be compared. And also, the MCP itself does not mean a thing. IMO, sombody has to go the full MCSD route to be considered "certified". The MCP is joke... All it says is that you passed one exam.


>
One thing I've noted throughout many of your posts (on a vast array of issues) - your assumption seems to be that most developers are (or should be) on the "bleeding edge" in their work.
>

I am glad you say my assumption "seems" to go that route. Developers need to stay current - and that implies at the very least, looking ot the bleeding edge. If you read my posts - you would know that I have advocated 1 basic rule, keeping 1 leg grounded in what tested and works and the other leg looking to the future. Likely, one will need to thrash through several items before landing on something that will take off. Technology moves forward. If you are a developer who plans to be successful, you better be moving forward with it. That Del is the essense of strategic planning. On a tactical basis, you ring the register with what is out there today. The problem that many developers face is that they stayed only in the tactical arena - without giving thought to their career strategy. As a result, they became proficient in 1 tool. The problem for many is that their proficiency is bound to that one tool. Looking at other tools now is a more dificult task. Predicating ones skills in a particular skill set is a strategic cardinal sin. The real good developers OTOH can pick up other tools without - in all material respects - missing a beat.



>
I don't agree with that ssumption/assertion, and I don't think that's largely the case in actual fact. Sure, the gurus need to be there, as they are by definition the "leaders." But the rank and file remain maybe a version or so behind as they learn, in many cases from the aforementioned guru's articles and conference presentations. In my case, that's been largely the case for quite a number of years (ie, I develop, on average, about a version behind the current version).
>

Whether you want to realize this or not - what the gurus do is strategically based. Your choice to develop on software a version old is a tactical choice. i.e., the two are not substitutes for one another.


>
Perhaps you remember from your MBA days in marketing class studying the new product development process. At various stages in a product life cycle the product has different types of buyers (Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, Laggards). The point is, not everyone is an Innovator or Early Adopter like you, and a significant percentage of "buying" occurs after the Early Majority. This applies to VFP itself, its developers and their development skills, and even still the user base served by these developers.
>

Interesting points...except that people that look at .NET today are not considered early adopters. And again, you don't need to be an early adopter to merely investigate what is coming down the pike. I have NEVER suggested that people adopt .NET at the expense of anything else. What I have suggested is that people investigate .NET. Of course, that was 2 years ago.


>
It might be anecdotal, but I noted with interest in Jim Eddins recent post where he said a number of developers have yet to upgrade to VFP8 because much of their user base still run Windows 95. I know of several companies that fit that description. They will upgrade in due time - probably when most of us think what they upgrade to is still in the dark ages - yet that's where they typically are most of the time anyway. You're not going to sell these people a .Net solution anytime soon.
>

Your paragraph here implies that they will necessarily upgrade to a new version of VFP at some point in the future. The biggest trend in the shops wtih Fox solutions I suspect is migration away from Fox - in whole or part.

>
Same goes for your criticisms of FoxTalk & (more so) FoxPro Advisor. You will laugh at this, but sometimes I think they focus *too* much on new stuff. Think about someone new to Foxpro. They might not get near as much out of these mags if they didn't have some articles on older stuff mixed in.
>

It is about tailoring things to the readership. The fact is Del - very few people are new to Fox. If you look at the demographics, the average Fox developer I believe has used the product for 7 years and is over 40 years old. Newbie topics are not something that is going to be of interest. And - if somebody wants that content - they can look at the archives.


>>
Clearly, you think an article is useless if it is a "rehash" of something covered a couple of times, but that's not necessarily the case. An article covering a topic already done may do so using a different approach and different sample code which may give a reader more depth of understanding, or finally make things come together when they did not before.
>>

If it is a new twist on an old idea, then I don't consider it a re-hash. But these cases are very rare.

>
I can tell you (since I say I develop a version behind) that some of these "rehashes" could not have come at a better time.
>

I am happy for you...


>
I could go on and on. While I'm on a roll here, I might as well confess I still use remote views when working with SQL Server data, and I'm not really into .Net that much yet. I'm gradually looking at using stored procedures and developing in .Net,
>

Good to see you are looking forward.


>>
Once I get to actually using them, somehow I feel like there will be folks like you telling me I'm wasting my time for working with those "dying" technologies or techniques because of the next new thing. Yet all the while I'm making a living doing it.
>>

I have never told somebody they are wasting their time making a living with a tool. Del, I ring the register with Fox (and Oracle) and I know for sure that I am not wasting my time. My circumstances are a bit different as I am not going to be in this business long-term - but if I was - I would still feel the same way. Sorry Del - but your last comment here makes it seem as though you have a big chip on your shoulder.

Remember Del - truly good skills transcend technology. In the end, the technology should not matter. And that said, if you can make money with Fox -go for it. As long as your skill set is not tied to the "Fox way" of doing things - you are in good shape. A lot of people that poo poo the new stuff do so in light of how Fox does things. Why? Because that is their only frame of reference. Those are the people that are in serious trouble - because their problems are borne more of strategy than tactics.