John,

You've got a problem. It's your language.

Why don't you mimic the language used in a court room. I'm sure you won't used many "Twits" in there. The judge would'nt allow it. If you continue to do it in here perhaps it'll stick with you and you'll begin to use that kind of language in court which could get you in trouble.

I'm only telling you this for your good.

I'm not telling you to stop insulting others. It seems to be something impossible for you.

Just change the language ;-)

P.S. We'll start with that and the perhaps we'll be able to work on others flaws later.


>>Your standpoint:
>>1. VFP is dead because its userbase is declining
>
>One of many reasons. VFP is - in all material respects dead because:
>
>1. MS is making movements toward phasing it out. It is already marginalized.
>2. Because of 1, there are few opportunities
>3. Because of 2, there are few developers
>4. Because of 2, companies, looking at staffing reasons only, need to adopt
> new technology. There are also technical reasons, but we don't need to
> get there.
>5. Because of 4, there are few opprotunities
>and on, and on, and on... It is now a problem that is feeding on itself. In programming terms, VFP is in an infinite do..while loop. It will stay in this loop until the condition in 1 changes to .F. ...
>
>Comprende....
>
>>2. VB is not dead because still a lot of users out there
>
>VB has evolved. VB is part of .NET. VB is alive and well....
>
>>3. VFP9 is irrelevant, because it is too little, too late.
>
>Yes - because VFP itself is basically dead.
>
>>4. People should abondon the sinking ship and inmediately start in .NET
>
>People should keep their options open. Whether that is .NET, Java, Python, or whatever, it really does not matter. Even .NET developers - who are flush with work should not be lazy. They shoud keep working - to keep their options open and their skills fresh. That is why people like Markus, Rod, Rick, et al. - will stay relevant. That is also why some other - not named "VFP Gurus" and the like - will continue to be irrelevant.
>
>
>>1. There are still one or a few hundred thousand VFP developers using the tool every day.
>
>Probably a lot more cobol developers - but I don't think you see people flocking to it....
>
>
>>2. There is also a major decline in VB developers (because of transition to .NET). So why is VB not dead and VFP is ?
>
>Still a lot of VB 6 opportuntities. Indeed, VB 6 may be "dead" - but the number of opportunities counter-acts that issue. I don't know if one just starting out - should pick up VB 6 from scratch. But...given the choice between VFP and VB 6 - one could parlay the VB 6 skills a lot more readily than the VFP skills.
>
>
>>
>3. There many VFP developers out there that are really waiting for VFP9, so how can you judge it is irrelevant.
>>
>
>No doubt... So based on this, I guess your theory is that upgrade numbers may be more dismal than 8, more dismal than 7. You know what happens when the upgrade numbers continue to decline....
>
>>
>4. you´re spreading FUD, just like you did before .NET in pushing people into VB.
>>
>
>When you can name one VFP developer that was adversely affected by that advice, get back to me....
>
>>
>What is your motivation to do this?
>>
>
>To show the fallacy of twits like you...
>
>>
>You should be ashamed of yourself. You do a great disserve to the VFP community.
>>
>
>Actually, I am probably providing more value than people like you realize...
>
>>
>You´re only here to seek and destroy.
>>
>
>Twits like you...yes...
>
>>
>I really wonder how much you get paid to do this up here.
>>
>
>I consider it a moral obligation.
>
>>Get a life.
>
>Have one...and unlike you, I don't wax poetic as it it where still 1988.
>
>Get relevant Walter...
>
>
>John