>While I would agree that specific tactics of what will be in place 5/10 years from now are hard to predict, I think it is safe to say that certain strategies and methodolgies will be. Specifically, it is clear that for some time, software companies have been moving AWAY from the pc-based computing arena that dominated the late 80's to the mid-90's. That is the 10 year period where PC's dominated - where x-base languages where in their prime. From the mid-90's until today, the world of components took off and matured. In this second 10 year period, the foundations of what the next 10 year period has to offer were set in place. Anybody who was paying attention at the 1993 FoxPro Devcon-Keynote saw the writing on the wall. And certainly, by 1998 - with the advent of the Internet in full swing, if it was not clear where things were headed 5 years prior - it was in 1998. That was the year I asked Bill Gates the famous question re: the future of Visual FoxPro. Hard to believe, but that was
>almost 7 years ago.

So ? After 7 years VFP is still here and VB 6 down the drain. Did you ever wonder why Fox has a history of almost 20 years now? Do you understand its success ?

If you really do, then you'd see the future, which .NET really is not at this moment.


>I find it interesting - the number of nay-sayers in the Fox ranks who continue to sit on the sidelines - waiting for all of the innovations of today to fail. You do realize that is a lousy criteria upon which to base a technology choice on...right???

No a very valid one. If something does work and customers are happy, why jump ship? If the other way does not provide you a clear advantage in what you're doing now, why jump ship? Because the hyped managers and yasayers because they want to score? ROFLMAO. That's pathetic.

In effect, the argument is "I am sticking with Fox becuase the new stuff is not proven, it is likely to fail, and Fox will be there to pick up the pieces..." Simply put, that is not going to happen.

New technology has to evolve. Sadly the new technologies often don't learn the lessons from the past. It is totally beyond me why .NET is not more integrated with database technology. You'd say they have some experience with VFP (to a limited extend) and with the aquisition of Navision they really should have a clue how software developement should look like in the future.

Of course, they have invested much in the CLR and the JIT compiler, and I guess they had to release something at some point, but to be a real killer platform the at least could have build in a native database engine. Why have all those reasources like classes forms reports, bmps etc scattered throughout your HD ? Why not put them into a database in a structured way. Things then are so much easier.

>Fox is at least a generation behind the state of the art. There are so many innovations today that make life easier for a developer that Fox is not capable of doing.

It is easy to make such statement. Please provide examples. I really have a hard time in thinking of things that would my life easier.

>And if that is not bad enough, there are things Visual Basic could do 7 years ago that made life easier that Fox still cannot do today.

Again, qualify. A Callback function maybe? Well, you could write a fll and use that in VFP. There are more things in VFP that VB can't do than the other way arround. So please give me break.

>After all this time, Fox still cannot fully interoperate with the Windows API.

Cristof lang has written the stuct class a long time ago to make things easier to integrate. You can always write a dll to overcome this issue. OTOH, you've got to ask what is the importance. Lots of API calls are directly supported, structs can be handled, but callback functions are a bit more difficult (you have to write a dll), but nothing is impossible.

>nor can it fully support event-driven application development.

Examples please? It seems like an empty statement.

>And compared to the state of the art today, its implementation of OO - while good in 1995 - has too many short-comings today.

Like? While there are always wishes there are no big omissions in VFPs OO model. Please clarify.

>If all you care about is building simple order entry apps that will run on a few PC's - then I suppose Fox will still be a viable alternative. However, given the state of the art - that does not seem terribly exciting to me.


Define - state of the art - and who is waiting for that? I know I build state of the art applications integrating with lots of technologies like HL7, Medical machine integration, Video and photo capturing, graphical tools, crystal reports, SQL server, running on different tiers, with VFP as glue. Well tell me what - state of the art - means in context of the above.

>And while one can make a living with that kind of work, it pales in comparision to the financial opportunties that exist when you have .NET, Java, SQL Server, Oracle, etc. in your toolbox.

ROFLMOA, you really think that an average .NET developer is better of than an average VFP developer?

>Those that embraced other technologies years ago - like VB , SQL Server, etc. - got the message and are reaping the rewards today.

Yep, because all VB projects have to be rewritten again. VB sucked in various ways.

>As each year goes by, Devcon Pictures look more like an AARP/Grey Panther convention. It is an accurate metaphor re: the role Fox has today in the world of computing.

And what does this say? Think about it. It does say something totally different from what you're trying to imply here.

>Finally, I tend to get fairly aggressive and abrasive with my comments because of the type of comments you make re: .NET being .NOT - and the nay saying that goes on with that. If that is really the case, then why are there many more Fox developers leaning .NET than there are developers learning Fox??????

You cannot backup this statement, because you don't have the numbers. So please stop the crap. VFP ers might learn .NET as a secundary tool, just as many VFP developer have learned other languages. Why are so many .NET developers hanging arround this forum ???? (Gotcha)


>Prediction, by 2014, it will be several years since the the last version of Fox shipped.

Prediction, .NET has been replace by it successor for sevaral years now: a CLR/JIT compiler more data centric language that has a full seemless integration with SQL Server 2012. And you are still hanging around this forum just to find ways to troll people...

Walter,