>Pardon me, John, but that is clearly a heavily biased opinion and I also don't think it holds water at all!
>
>The fact the YOU *do* TechEds immediately makes you biased.

You will need to clarify here. The fact that I, or anybody speaks at TechEd is not the issue. The issue is that many folks complain because of the lack of VFP sessions. My point is - if you do not go to TechEd - or if you do go to TechEd but do not go to the VFP sessions - why would you care. Its kind of like complaining about city hall - but you don't vote. If you don't vote, you don't have a right to bitch.

The same can be said for folks that complain about technical content at developer conferences - but don't go to those conference. Why do those folks have the right to complain. Seems to me you either need first hand experience or at least willing to make the comitment.

>Since when has "making the committment to go to TechEd. . " been a "rule" for permission to criticize???
>If the TechEds are so poorly attended, maybe just maybe MS ought to re-think the approach. You clearly believe in them, but it seems pretty clear that countless others do not.

TechEds are not poorly attended. In fact, they always sell out at least a month before the show - this year is no exception. The bottom line is that TechEd has always been a VB/VC/NT/Office gig. The fact that there are one or two sessions on VFP this year is a good thing and really shows some comittment toward the product - or at least - to the development base of the product.

Yes, I do believe in them - largely because I have accepted VFP's role in the big picture. There are many who have not. Don't get me wrong in that I think VFP is a great tool. Like any tool - there is a correct context for it. I tend to not view things in a VFP only context. Don't take this as me accusing you of this.


>Look, MS has the KB, which seems suitable to many people. But I contend that >the vast majority of people either don't even know about it or find the bulk >of the articles poor and error-prone and far too specific.

I am not sure of your point here. I find the KB to be a great source of information. I do agree that many folks do not know of the knowledgebase. I am not sure how a KB article can be too specific.


>It would not be reasonable to tell someone that they can't be considered to be a FP/VFP programmer if they will not refer to the KB articles. What is even more unreasonable is that MS seems to rely on these poor articles in lieu of proper product documentation.

I am not sure what your point is either. I never questioned what or what not qualifies one as a fp/vfp developer.

With regard to documentation, I am not sure if a company can ever produce documentation that any developer would be totally satisified with. I will say that the documentation that was produced for version 3.0 was pretty good.


>That you know Robert Green is good. That you written much on FP/VFP is good too. But this opinion sure has to lead one to wonder??

Lead one to wonder about what???