I like the analogy with Python, Perl, Linux, etc. VFP beats these development environments hands-down, in my opinion, including web applications. Before MS even contemplates not continuing VFP, they should consider making it Open SOurce and letting developers continue it's development...
>Hi Walter,
>
>> [...] you still have to ask yourself the question, is this the language >that can be seen as the successor of VFP ? Currently I say no.
>
>My additional 0.02
>
>I feel the same about VFP. No MS successor currently. I have practiced foxpro and VFP extensively since 1986. Most of us here on UT have enjoyed the sheer productivity of fox when tackling database stuff. We have VFP 9. Thanks to MS for their active support for this great old tool.
>
>Part of the experience is related to the fact VFP is an interpreter.
>Like it or not, the tech gurus will have to accept that a strictly typed-environment is not what most fox people who produce midsize "data-centric applications" wish.
>
>If you pay attention the "high-end" discussions that take place on the "python" language forums (a general-purpose language that shares quite a few things with fox), you will find a few VERY sharp guys (IT reseach background for most of them) advocating for smart "run-time" based programming tools. Ain't a discussion between old and new ...
>
>Currently the discussion in the python-dev world (the whole stuff is "open-sourced" and the tech discussions ain't biased by commercial views) revolves around optional (yes!) versus strict-datatyping ...
>
>Some will push for it arguing that stricter data-typing is key to run-time speed. Others will resist arguing that "simplicity matters" most.
>
>As far as application-development is concerned, it looks like the great long-running debate around computer language efficiency, compiler-vs-interpreter is far from closed by java and .net...
>
>François