Jim,

While this sort of thing may have been true 10 years ago, I don't believe that we, as developers, live in the Dark Ages anymore ... when even people like my 70 year old mother use the Internet, there is no excuse what-so-ever for a professional software developer to *not* further his/her developer skills by gleaning information from online sources.

~~Bonnie



>Kevin,
>
>SNIP
>>
>>Why do you suppose that is? If they don't see Ken's white papers, odds are they don't even know about VFP9. Most .NET developers I know have at least two dozen sites bookmarked, listen to broadcasts of .NET Rocks!, are competitive amongst themselves about knowledge of product direction, and don't seem to have a problem using third-parties for meaningful "how-to" material. The mindset and the energy level are very different.
>
>You seem to be making the assumption that all VFP developers are like us - making heavy use of the internet to keep abreast of current developments in the field.
>
>I believe that it's pretty well accepted that such is not the case. I've seen estimates that range between (only) 10% - 20% of the VFP developer population - those who would constitue "the community" - who actually do augment their VFP skills through the internet. These other people seem to operate on the basis that they have a life outside of their jobs.
>
>These people will learn about VFP9 when it is released. These people may not know what a bookmark is or their bookmarks may relate to leisure interests rather than job interests.
>These people obviously have ONLY the standard VFP documentation as their reference for details regarding VFP. These people don't read MSKB articles to learn the "extra details" (i.e. "working as designed" answers with added information to explain) or the "How to..." articles.
>
>I think it would be unfair to categorize such people as unmotivated individuals who likely write only po-dunk applications on a 9-5 basis. It is us who are fanatical and we are but a fraction of the whole.
>
>I don't see third party white papers and such as a problem in and of themselves. But what I do see is a HUGE problem in MS' reliance on them (and the MSKB and other MS-published items) to supplement information regarding VFP. This effectively short-changes the majority of the VFP developer population.
>This is not new. I complained years ago that MSKB articles explaining "working as designed" or "How to..." never have their contents make it into the basic product documentation. Doesn't it makes sense to you that something warranting a "working as designed" (further) explanation article says outright that the current documentation is deficient? Shouldn't an MSKB article just be the first step, with integration into the product documentation being the final objective?
>Is it not the same with "whitepapers"?... If something is worth publication as a whitepaper is there not a good chance that it is of interest to ALL of the VFP developer population?
>
>You know that I have yet to dip into .NET (I've read a book on ASP.NET and that's it so far) but I have seen several prominent VFP developers comment that MS' documentation is both sparse and difficult and observe that they have to rely on third party papers for genuinely helpful information. Does this sound right to you? Does this sound like MS is getting better or worse at the business of documentation? Is it satisfactory that important 'documentation' is being USED widely when that information is from people who probably are informed on only a subset of .NET and who may actually be detailing factors that MS has plans to remove or re-design radically in the near future?
>
>I think it comes down to fanatics like us are grateful for ANYTHING we can dig up and we don't care how we come by it. That's fine for us, but it does badly short-change the majority of developers of ANY of MS' products.
>
>I've seen complaints regarding MS' .NET documentation from the get-go, and what I read indicates that the situation has not changed one iota. For those of you who are getting deeper into .NET I would expect that you would be screaming blue murder at this rather than gleefully accepting that third party white papers are acceptable.
>
>cheers
>
>>
>>Kevin