Hi John

See my reply to Rodman.

>Mike,
>
>I am going to do my best to not provoke a fire-storm here. That said, what is your point to this post? It is not a secret that to most I/T decision makers outside the VFP-Community, VFP is perceived as a legacy/antiquated tool. And in spite of the fact that VFP has progressed far past its "xbase roots", VFP is still regarded by many as an xbase tool - along with dBase - their OO capabilities notwithstanding. And given that xBase is still at the core of the langauge, this opinion is not entirely unjustified or unreasonable. Like it or not, when you mention xBase - it conjurs up images in the minds of many of 1980's and early 1990's PC-Based LAN applications.
>
>Would agree with that assessment? If you know that, I have to then ask, what is your point if it is known already?
>
>It's just the way it is Mike.
>
>
>
>
>>Here's a "FoxPro" job.
>>
>>"The candidate will work as an application developer in a small IT development team within a global business unit of Aon Corp. The role will initially involve maintaining existing xBase (Foxpro) systems and perfecting a new Visual Basic and Access application. The candidate will eventually work on converting existing xBase programs to a sustainable and contemporary platform, possibly one that is remotely accessible."
>>
>>Too bad eh?