Rearranging notes here...

Jim Nelson said:
>>>Aw c'mon Craig - if you KNOW something, say so!. . . saying you don't want to start one of those VFP is dead threads sounds like you know about the eventual disposition of VFP and that it is slated to "die" (possibly in that it will become something else).

Then Craig Bernston said:
>>OK..at the risk of starting things...and I just want to point out that I'm leaving for Orlando in a couple of hours and won't have access to the UT until after DevCon...so I won't be able to respond, but here it goes....
>>
>>SQL Server 7.0 will run on Win95 and NT...so there is lots of scalability there. Supposedly Access being redesigned as a front-end to SQL Server. Microsoft is also toying with the idea of shipping SQL Server with Office. If Access becomes a front-end (Jet is going away), then this is a high possibility. So, my question is, other than OOP, what does VFP have going for it?
>>
>>As for folding things together...it is already happening. ActiveX and COM are the way it will happen. It won't be overnight, but we are already seeing things moving that way. Forms will just be an object that gets instantiated. It won't matter the language you use...just as it doesn't matter for COM and ActiveX. Reports and menus will be the same.

Then Jim Nelson said:
>Thanks Craig. . . you've given me something to think about.

Oh really?????

This could get fun - I could like this. Not the Access part - its programming model is terrible - I know this - I consult in it. But imagine using SQL Server as a back end (on either Win95 or WinNT) to a front or middle tier in VFP, VB, VC++, Smalltalk, or any other languages that can speak to it. Especially if there is a runtime distributable engine that those of us that write distributed applications could send out.

I like how this industry evolves...and VFP can still play a part. As for Craig's qustion about VFP's contribution other than OOP, I will claim that that OOP is enough for it to be a viable tool for me.