>>
>>>
>>>The same has been said about Fox, but IMO it just doesn't apply to VFP. Fox DOS & Windows were so easy to develop. VFP took it to another level. The OOP capabilities took things to another level and only the serious took that step, even though it isn't required.
>>
>>Thats why our numbers shrunk from 3-4 million to 5-600,000. We lost the mediocre coders when VFP came out. I couldn't agree more.
>
>Or, as is the case here, simply because it now has the 'VISUAL' in front of it, many people assume that it is no longer FoxPro. Most of the discussions I've had around here is:
>
>Manager: We're looking at VB for this database app.
>
>Me: Why not VFP?
>
>Manager: We don't have anyone who knows VFP.
>
>Me: What about (insert name here), or (insert another name here)? They know Fox
>
>Manager: Yeah, but they don't know VFP and we don't have time for them to learn.
>
>Me: Do they know VB?
>
>Manager: No, but we hear that VB is easier to learn than VFP.
>
>Usually I give up after that - wait for them to discover how much VB & C/S is gonna cost for a 20 user system and then get ready for a bunch of VFP questions (grin)


Let's also go back to DevCon 97. There were LOTS of VFP developers who had comments along these lines:

Client: We dropped FoxPro in favor of VB (or Delphi orPowerBuilder) and it's just not handling it. Can you come back and provide a solution in VFP?

Developer: No problem.