John,

>Why not stick with what you´re doing now, and use the new advanced technology when it is mature and available.

>Several flaws in this reasoning

We´ll see.

>1. It assumes that new/advanced technology is not available.

Avalon and longhorn are not avialable.

>2. It assumes there is an absolute definition of "mature". One can credibily argue that .NET is mature. It has been out for several years now.

Mature means that there are no fundemental changes in the loop as that gives you a total different viewpoint on development with this tool.

>3. When technology becomes mature, it by definition, is no longer new - although it may still be advanced.

True, so what is the point?

>4. When VFP 3 came out, it was both new and advanced. And...in spite of this, it was advocated quite heavily.

Thats why I never released any products on VFP3 because of performance and resource problems. I got in on VFP5. There is also another difference. There was not much of an alternative when doing desktop applications at that time. And seriously, when having to choose from upgrading my existing application from VFP 6,7 and 8, there is no way I´m going to upgrade them to a development tool like .NET unless I have no other choice. It takes too much time. I´m not sure about you, but I´ve got more things to do, than just spend thousands of hours in doing webforms, while eventually I want them into Avalon...

Also, .NET is immature on a number of aspects, which are debatable but many have agreed upon inferiour data binding, resource consumption, the absense of local database engine, RAD application provisions. So what do I gain ??? Nothing. I loose.

>There is a good deal of anti-fox prejudice/fox-bias going on here. The rule is thus:

>If it is new, advanced, immature, it is acceptable if Fox. On the other hand, regardless of maturity, if it not fox, it is not acceptable.

No, see my message above. I did not find VFP3 acceptable in many aspects (mainly performance, and resource consumption).

Try harder...

Walter,