I seem to remember that the Fox group was telling us that "fitting" VFP into the
.NET framework would have severely crippled it. Anyone else have more
information about this?
I admit I haven't done any more than to purchase a copy of VB.NET and
investigate it. I determined that it's a much more inferior application dev.
platform for the small/medium/large sized business applications I develop than
VFP so I stuck with VFP.
Bob Calco said, "The point is that FoxPro's GUI facilities cannot beat the
flexibility and
power of the component development architecture of .NET"
So???
Gosh, folks. You DO realize that a huge number of businesses are running DOS
applications on Win95 computers? Running "old, moldy" software doesn't mean you
can't perform the work that needs to be done. Conversely, running your business
with software that uses the latest, slick, bleeding edge "technology" doesn't
guarantee that the work that needs to be done will be done. In fact, in most of
these "mom and pop" environments, they will have MORE problem dealing with these
fancy apps than they would with a "backward" GUI like Foxpro's. I would suspect
that in a majority of cases, "upgrading" software that works to the latest
bleeding edge has caused more problems than it solved.
For instance, I worked for a company from Dec. 2000 to May 2002 whose core
business ran on a Foxpro/DOS VFP hybrid system! This system worked fine. We
did have a need to port the DOS components to VFP to accommodate newer hardware
and to decrease network problems (there were approximately 1200 people on-line
to this system -- accessing data, printing reports, performing analysis, etc.).
We also needed to do some minor re-programming since with our larger clients we
were occasionally bumping up against the 2GB barrier.
The company instead opted to port the application to VB/C/SQL Server (I'm sure
they would have chosen .NET if it had been available at the time). This
decision killed this company, they have sold themselves (their client list) to
their major competitor and laid off nearly everyone by now.
This was not the only case I've seen where people have destroyed their
livelyhood by chasing after the myth that newest and fanciest is always best!
Chet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Profox" <profox /AT/ bdurham .DOT com>
To: <profoxtech@leafe.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: Fox technical chat on ProFox
> > It seems to me that the real competition isn't between VFP and VS ...
>
> I think the BEST solution would be for MS to port VFP to .NET. It seems
> that every other language one can think of has been ported to .NET. And
> while I understand that there are many "challenges" to VFP being ported
> to .NET, I have faith that the VFP development team could do this. And
> that the .NET framework is robust enough to support this.
>
> I don't buy the arguement that VFP for .NET would be just another VB.NET.
> I do buy the arguement that VB.NET is just a syntacially different flavor
> of C#.
>
> Malcolm
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2004 Chet Gardiner |
