>Rod,
>
>Nothing you said amounts to an argument supporting your original claims with the sole exception that one can't find any VFP developers. This argument, however, seems to be easily falsified:
>
>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~CategoryAvailable


Mike,

You should be careful about going down the "argument" road. The last time you tried, you got stung....

The bottom line Mike - it is all about perception. With respect to Mike Yearwood's post, in somebody's opinion, VFP is xBase and xBase is not a sustainable and viable platform upon which to develop applications. Whether .NET is/is not viable is not the issue. What is the issue is how in this one case, perceives VFP's place in the world. It is interesting to see how people have responded. The basic response - like yours and Walter Meester's - is laughable - because it 100% ignores the relevant issue - the PERCEPTION of people outside the Fox Community. To respond with something like "Oh yea...well VS .NET <> sustainable and viable..." is besides the point. Most definitely, that may be your opinion, and indeed, you may have valid reasons to make your opinion rational. But...to counter and invalidate another person's opinion with nothing more than your opinion is not an argument. Further, responses like Bill Sanders' response is also laughable. To fill somebody's inbox with a bunch of emails asking why oh why are they not using VFP 8 makes those who would do such a thing look like the desparate people they actually are.

Just let it go......