I've been arguing a lot with Ken Levy about the non-marketing of VFP.

I know it won't change things in a big way .Net is the thing

But I'm doing it mainly to let him know that we're aware of what's going on.

To me the worst thing would be to let it go without saying anything.

What I hope will happen over these complaints is that it'll keep VFP alive a little longer.

Let me state again that I know that .Net is the MS thing now. But to many developers VFP still does the job.



Probable scenario without complaints :

From within MS this could be interpreted has a lost of interest in the community. With a signal that clear why should we bother to keep improving VFP.

Probable scenario with complaints :

MS continues to improve VFP because the signal is loud and clear that VFP is still used by enough developers to justify improving it.



>It does work both ways in that people who choose to let .NET mature before jumping in are not po-dunkers either.
>
>I'll ask a question that I believe I asked up here some time ago - how are you measuring 'when .NET matures'? Why specifically do you believe it is not stable? I continue to believe this is more a stall tactic. While some wait for .NET to 'mature', others are building some pretty sophisticated apps with it.
>
>The difference of course between going to VFP7 or 8 or 9, for those of us that do, is that the jump is trivial compared to leaping to .NET.
>
>Agreed...all the more reason to start learning it now.
>
>If you have clients/managers who want to stick with Fox until the dying day, more power to you, and I mean that sincerely.
>
>But as a consultant/contractor, I see more and more companies that recognize the direction MS is setting - and they also look at other factors, like which technologies will grow, which technologies will feature the best overall talent pool, etc. They've made their choice and are moving forward. Many ads for VFP jobs are also looking for .NET experience.
>
>Clients of today are very different from clients of 10-15 years ago - they pay closer to attention to what tools are being used, and are far less likely to accept Fox for the future. I have not seen 'new' development projects in VFP in quite a while.
>
>And that's why I made the post to Gerald, to give him some food for thought (and I'm glad John jumped in as well). He should be thinking about these things. John Petersen has been unfairly criticized in the past for the way he's tried to 'help Fox developers' by making them aware of the realities out there. Based on what I've seen over the last few years, there was a high degree of providence in several of John's recommendations. Believe me, 3 years ago I got a rude awakening when I realized that many clients/potential clients were not going to accept Fox any longer.
>
>The business model of 10-15 years ago was comparatively more conducive to developers being allowed to chose the development tools. To a great degree, that model has changed. Clients have a greater interest in the technology choice, and John hit the nail on this head - anyone who is thinking strategically over the next 3-5 years, and is thinking about some of the factors I've mentioned here (and many others) is not likely to go with a technology that is, yes, a legacy technology.
>
>There is somehow a belief held by some members of this forum that continued pressure on Ken will result in more marketing efforts to convince these clients otherwise. I know that this belief is well-meaning, but is just not realistic on any large scale.
>
>Kevin