John,

>True, but you seem to lump .NET in this category...

Maybe I was.

>>>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.

>Cite your authority? Or are you just stating your opinion?

Since when do you care about authority, and did ever care to cite your authority? Just look in the dictionary what mature means.

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

>>True, so what is the point?

>That your premise is logically flawed. You stated earlier that new/advanced tecnology should only be used when it is mature... One necessarily eliminates the other. i.e., something can't be new and mature at the same time...

I´m never going to say that one should only use it when it is mature. If you choose to live on the bleeding edge, so be it. However, don´t try to lump everyone into this. There might be very good reasons not to be on the bleeding edge (See Jess´ message).

>>>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.

>OK then...there should be no issue since .NET has undergone a rev since it was first released...

And will be again in the near future. So that is the personal reason to wait and see what happens.

>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...

>So the real issue with .NET is not that it is not mature - but rather, because it takes too much time.

It takes too much time to be on the bleeding edge and find out that in a number of aspects .NET is inferiour to VFP. Yes. Beeing on the bleeding edge means that much time gets lost in findin solutions to common problems or bugs.

>Also, you state you are waiting for Avalon. Yet, if you apply the same logic then as you are today, you will say that Avalon is not mature...

I´m waiting for avalon to reevaluate the situation. I never implied to blindly jump the avalon ship, No way. There are too many things in the pipeline that are going to change in the near future with regards to .NET. I would assume for the better. But then again, evaluate and then decide. I´m currently working on a big project that has to be stable and easy maintable for a number of years. The decision was made a few years ago to do that in VFP. It is not a wise decision to live on the bleeding edge with such solutions.

>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.

>The issue with data-binding is really an issue of implementation - which is a problem that has been solved in a variety of ways. Personally, I think way too much is made over the issue - again becuase it has been solved.

I think a lot of developers would disagree with this statement if you´re talking about .NET 1.1. Databinding will be improved in .NET 2.0. So that makes your argument a personal one instead of a well informed one. See also the messages of markus in this respect. He openly stated that when looking from a VFP perspective databinding in .NET sucks....

Walter,