John,

I read several messages from folks showing how you can develope in .net for FREE. Yet you chose to shoot down their messages. I have used the icsharp interface and it was extrememely useful. Just because you had bad experiences before with one product, doesn't mean you should slam future attempts.

There are many alternatives in the .net environment. MS makes their money from Windows sales. The more peope they get to develop for Windows, the better for them. So they have made it as easy as possible to develop in .net.

Georgaras sounds like many of the 2.6 Fox developers when VFP first came out. They stayed with FPD and FPW, and still do today. You can still see them making posts about having difficulty getting FPD to work with newer printers or with features in Win XP.

If someone wants to maintain being a corporate developer, they have no choice but to go with the flow. This requires learning whatever tools are being used in the basic corporate environment today. VFP is not in the mix. Unless it's to convert an existing VFP app to Java or .Net.

PF

>Kevin,
>
>>>1) The original message made three assertions that I challenged.
>
>>>a - that .NET will become .HISTORY first
>>>b - that Microsoft can only sell .NET to big companies
>>>c - that implementing a back-end meant dealing with site licenses for SQL Server or using the Jet engine
>
>I challenge the "assertions" that you assert.
>
>His main assertion deals with COST, something you have left out completely.
>
>Re .HISTORY- the assertion is that VFP will still be around and declining long after development moves to the next paradigm. Difficult to disagree when even the dreaded COBOL is out there happily declining away.
>
>He stated that "he can't see how" MS can sell dotNET to anybody but big companies who have the cash. Even ignoring the cost part that you left out: are you advocating that the Church that he mentions in his post is a natural target market for dotNET, or that mom-and-pop outfits with no internet connection in the shop are a suitable target market?
>
>Re backends- in context it is irrelevant that he didn't mention MSDE. His point still applies, even though his Church presumably has DBAs in the congregation who will maintain the server and MSDE for free.
>
>>>I haven't asked anyone to 'join' anything. Your statement is a generalization and misleading.
>
>Oh come off it. You are on record as advocating dotNET over VFP in numerous ways, including 100% conversions which you again say is the happy state you have achieved for yourself.
>
>I respect that you want to help people with the dotNET learning curve. I respect that your motives are positive. Perhaps if you re-read my post in that light, you will see that I am simply advocating a more collaborative approach that understands and supports his decisions without any exhortative payload. Example:
>
>>>There are 'some' shops converting VFP apps that just don't want Fox at all, even though they're aware of the intermediate steps. I've personally encountered three in the last 15 months, and I know of others who have run into the same. That's just the way it is...
>
>Voila. Kevin, you need to accept that this is not news to anybody here, also to consider how this is supposed to be received by somebody who is concerned about cost and suitability for those he services, and has decided not to follow your lead.