I seems with all the .NET advocating you and others from PA are doing you should be on a .NET forum asking technical questions or busy learning a new platform.

I guess your just not quite ready to be prime time or to go mano `y mano with "real" .NET programmers!

Paractice John - someday you will be worthy of a login on a .NET forum - but it's okay to hang around here with your friends - give us a URL to you latest .NET project just so we can see what your doing!



>>Dear JVP,
>>
>>Innovation and a healthy talent base/growing market being notable differences.
>>
>>OK, you must be saying that people move to dotNET because of innovation and a healthy talent base/growing market.
>>
>
>It is one of many reasons to move to a new platform - not necessarily .NET.
>
>
>>Which means that you are attributing to VFP:
>>
>>1) less Innovation
>>2) A less healthy/unhealthy talent base
>>3) A smaller/shrinking market.
>
>In a nutshell, I would say you have it right.
>
>
>
>>To look at the points in reverse order:
>>
>>3) I think we all agree that VFP's overall market is down. Development is segregating into open source and traditional windows development camps. Any tool like VFP that is outside both camps will shrink.
>>
>
>Interesting tactic. Basicially, you go the route of lumping VFP with everything else that is "non-open source". It's like a "safety in numbers" approach. Or, "if VFP is not alone, there will be other targets".
>
>Let's be clear, VFP's market (overall or otherwise) has been in a free fall for 7+ years. Today, there are fewer jobs than ever before. Today, there are more projects than ever that involve moving from VFP instead of going to VFP.
>
>There has not been a single net positive trend in the VFP world in 7+ years.
>
>
>>
>I'm sure we all agree that for some, this is an overwhelming siren-call to change horses- that would be true of ad-hoc consulting firms or technology writers/leaders, for example.
>>
>
>The time to prepare and change was about 2-4 years ago...
>
>
>>
>But hopefully we all also agree that this does not "prove" that anybody who stays in VFP is a fool or blind or all the rest of it. There will be profitable niches in VFP and in FP2.6 and similar tools for years to come. Did you know, for example, that one of the most popular tools for Vascular surgeons is written in Access97 using DAO(!) and maintained by a surgeon who is making a fortune from it. Does he care that DAO is "obsolete" or that his app will not run in latest Access or any of that? Nope. Try telling him that he needs to rewrite in dotNET, or that he is a fool compared to you and yours.
>>
>
>Here is a point that I do agree with. If you have a solution for a niche, and you fill that need, then heck, your app could be written for DOS and you would still achieve a good deal of success.
>
>Note however, this argument ONLY works for people who have a shrink-wraped type app - an ISV if you will. This argument WILL NOT work for the typical VFP consultant who makes a living going from job to job.
>
>
>>
>2) I think it is dangerous to label VFP as having a less healthy or unhealthy talent base.
>>
>
>As compared to 5+ years ago. Look at the leaders/gurus in the community then. Look at where they are today. For the most part, they ARE NOT in Fox anymore.
>
>If it is dangerous as you say, it is only becuase it is true.
>
>
>>
>A clique of self-appointed experts may be well pleased with their own cleverness and talent in the decisions they make, but that does not mean that everybody else has less talent. This is not a class society, so "talent" must be determined by "success" in the usual fashion. Difficult when the most successful people generally refuse to participate in boasting.
>>
>
>Sure, there are good - very good developers left. I am looking at the tier of recognized experts/gurus. The group pales in comparision to what was around a few years ago. The level of scholarship that existed back then dwarfs what is seen today.
>
>Whether you agree or disagree - it does not matter. It is a fact.
>
>
>
>>
>1) Less innovation? Depends whether innovation means "change" or something that completely alters business practice, which is how I interpret "innovation". To be fair, much of the dotNET "innovation" is for developers who get to achieve familiar outcomes in cool new ways. So far we have seen few examples where dotNET allowed new ways of conducting business that were simply impossible before. Unless you have some examples for me- outcomes from using dotNET that were never seen before?
>>
>
>Intesting way you deflect here JR. The fact is, there is little to no real innovation in VFP. It is great that features get into a product.....7+ years too late. I suppose if you go by the maxim of better late then never, then I guess you could say that things are great.
>
>I look at the discussions being had in the various .NET forums and I compare to what the general topics in the VFP forums are. The sad thing is this - the issues discussed 5+ years ago in the Fox world are essentially the same as what is discussed today. As far as innovation is concerned, I suppose if your idea of innovation is the handy feature on how to rotate a label, then I guess you have innovation. The whole cursoradapter scheme? I saw it long before it was public. Maybe if it had come out when 5 or 6 was released, it would be a different story. The fact is JR, the state of the art has progressed a bit - and VFP is not part of the story.
>
>As far as .NET is concerned, the innovation and advances made - IMO - are very significant. For the first time, it is become a reality that the construction of distributed apps is becoming manageable. Sure, the desired outcomes are familar - but the means to achieve those ends is what innovation is all about. From 1998 - 2004 : VFP is 90% the same product. It has not evolved significantly since 6.0 came out.
>
>Harsh reality for some...but a fact nonetheless...