>I see nothing wrong with those principles. But how and when do they apply sensibly to your listeners? For example, how will CAS transform the real life of a VFP-head out there such that they would agree with a sweeping disparagement of VFP on that basis?
>

The concepts and principles should stand on their own. You comment on the "disparagement of VFP". The fact is John, to many, ANY comment that is pro-.NET is often taken as anti-VFP. Further, many of these same people take ANY critique of VFP as being anti-VFP.

Whether or not a VFP-head gets transformed is 100% up to the VFP-head. It is his/her career livlihood on the line. Whether the most die-hard of VFP-heads change or not - I could care less becuase my points are no more or less valid by their unwillingness to change.



>
According to the experts, most developers are now doing browser apps. I'm not sure if that is true for VFP, but as I said before, developers serving dHTML from behind a proper firewall think of "security" completely differently from somebody distributing source code to PCs or accessing a database directly from multiple unsupervised fat clients or considering security on a theoretical level. E.g.: some would observe that when serving HTML from behind a firewall, relying on the database for security means you are in big trouble. Imagine if they wrote off your database security point with a sweeping disparagement without ever explaining their real-life basis. "Debate" would become a series of unsupported contradictions of little value. Would it not?
>

I will tell you that I know of a rather high profile VFP/DBF app in a company that is getting rewritten in Java/Oracle. Why does that project have a good shot at success? For one thing, you don't hear statements like "In VFP, we do it like this...."