Gerard,

It is negligence to the extent that there is a great deal of writing on the wall. As Dave Stephenson pointed out - if you have a short term need to get something on the web, then preserving as much of the Fox Code as possible by way of COM Components is a feasible move - but this is only a short term solution. In other words, it is a stop-gap measure at best. In the intermediate to long term range, firms better be thinking of how to migrate their code to platforms that are more supported and innovated.

The bottom line is this: in the world of MS application development, Fox is not on the stratetic path - and nowhere close to the cutting edge or state of the art. Couple that with the fact that it is VERY difficult to find programming talent, one has to seriously wonder why somebody would advocate Fox in the first place. In other words, is it in the best interest of the developer or the firm? If all the developer knows is Fox, then it is clear what the developer will advocate. I can totally understand why a Fox developer has a vested interest in keeping things Fox. Like it or not however, it is almost never in a firm's best interest - in the intermediate to long term - which is definitely in your 5 year plan - to stick with Fox. In spite of what some may say here, that is an argument they cannot win. And I invite ANYBODY on this forum to take up the debate with me. That includes guys like Dave Stephenson, Jim Nelson, John Ryan, and yes, Walter Meester.

Ultimately, when you know or should know the state of affairs for Fox, it is negiligence to consider Fox as a long term solution.

John



>Hi Kevin
>
>
>....I'm not bashing Fox - it's a great product. But promoting it for an entire 5 year technology plan is potentially tantamount to professional negligence.....
>I would tend to concur with most of your sentiments but I think you are going a bit far with this one.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Gerard
>
>
>
>>Gerald,
>>
>>1) Even if VFP will be suppported, .NET will be innovated. That is an important factor for a five year plan. The downward trends for VFP exceed the upward ones, and the reverse is true for .NET. Microsoft has declared VS.NET as their strategic development tool. Some major names in the VFP community have moved on (and/or have invested heavily in .NET).
>>
>>The other consultant could bring up any of these points: what would be your response? A letter promising 'support' and some case studies?
>>
>>2) John Petersen and I have a common client in the Southeast PA area. This client has a number of 'legacy' VFP applications. He's stated before (so I hope he won't mind me saying so) that the client was impressed with him because he didn't pay lip service to the technology they'd used for years . He was very candid that he hoped the client had a long-term goal of moving into more sophisticated technologies for distributed computing. In other words, he didn't tell them what some people might want to hear. (And John can correct me if I've misquoted him, but that's my understanding).
>>
>>3) I realize you can't move to .NET overnight, or even in a few months. It can take 6-12 months, or even longer. (It's easier now to transition than it was 2-3 years ago, because the on-line knowledge base is so huge).
>>
>>So you might want to think about a transition plan. But if you plan to promote VFP as the key tool for an entire five-year technology plan, you will eventually find yourself defending a position that went contrary to many business and technology trends. If your client is mapping out a five year plan, and knows the industry trends, odds are good that if you try to sell VFP ahead of newer technologies over the long haul, you run the risk of not being on the client's map in five years.
>>
>>That's why a few individuals on this forum have stressed the necessity to become proficient in the tools that MS is actively marketing. It makes business sense and is often the responsibile thing to do in the long run.
>>
>>I'm not bashing Fox - it's a great product. But promoting it for an entire 5 year technology plan is potentially tantamount to professional negligence.
>>
>>Hope this helps,
>>Kevin