VFP: How to make Visual FoxPro cool

To Andy MacNeill:Re: your statement – It is very limited thinking to suggest that the only reason that Visual Studio has succeeded is because it is a superior architecture. It succeeds because Microsoft can immediately place a product by throwing money at it. Look at Borland. Most developers believed that it was the superior development tools maker and more – but their products failed. Lotus Improv was far and beyond Excel 3.0 – yet it failed. Why?——————i.e. – VS succeeds because of marketing. That is a given. Still, the architecture and technical aspects of the product have to be in place first. It is a little hypocritical to scoff at VS for marketing reasons. After all, if VFP was marketed in such a manner that made claims beyond what it really could do – I doubt you would complain.

Hi JVP,Firstly I want to thank you for taking the time to leave a comment on my blog – I value the opinions of everyone who thinks through an issue (and you definately do this).Secondly I want state up front that I hold you in high regard. I thought your comments on Andrew’s podcast were extremely relevant (and I said as much at the time: http://craigbailey.blogspot.com/2006/01/vfp-catching-up-on-my-fox-show-backlog.html).Thirdly however I think it is important to clarify what I consider our difference in opinion is (and please let me know if I’ve misunderstood). It seems that you consider the reduction in VFP developers to be aligned with the technical merits (or lack of them) of VFP. I, on the other hand think the issue is to do with perception. And I agree it is a symptom – ie lack of developers is a symptom of VFP not being cool.Your statement ‘In my opinon, “coolness” has little or nothing to do with the matter’ is I guess the main point I disagree with. Coolness (ie the perception of the product) has everything to do with it in my opinion. It is for this reason that I don’t get involved in the .Net vs VFP technical debates (in that regard I just hedged my bets and built strong VFP and .Net teams at Talman).So, here’s my agenda… I think many products are technically weak, yet with the right ‘spin’ or marketing they can become very ‘cool’. I won’t give examples, or else the discussion will get bogged down debating them specifically – not my aim. While ‘cool’ may be subjective (as you state), I suggest that many uni students are being told what products are ‘cool’. How much better then when the products (for example .Net or Java) are actually very technically strong. Making them cool is very easy. OK, so there is no dispute with why .Net or Java are cool. They deserve to be.However, the crux of my argument is that VFP is also capable of being cool. Let’s assume that you think VFP is technically weak (I personally think it is strong, but again that is not the issue as I see it). My argument is that even if it were weak, there are a few simple things that could be done to make it cool. And I then listed off a few in section 3. of the post.The main reduction in overall VFP programmer size is not due to existing (and possibly disgruntled :-) Fox developers leaving – although ofcourse that is a contributor – rather, it is because there are not many new developers entering. And I contend that the reason they are not entering is because they don’t think VFP is cool, not because they have appraised the technical merits. I’d further contend that universities perhaps don’t take technical merits into account too heavily when selecting which tools to teach (however I am on un-informed ground here – certainly in my software engineering degree the recommended tools were often inappropriate – but that may have changed these days – another blog post perhaps…) Later in your comment you indicate scepticism with IT professionals that claim expertise, but instead dish out bias – on this issue I agree strongly. I cringe when I hear some Fox devotees try to push for Fox solutions when a non-Fox one is clearly superior. I should point out that I also get slightly frustrated when .Net developers do like wise. This sin exists in both camps…Your parting paragraph correlating demand with technical merit is actually what I wish the issue were. Oh how I wish the number of developers was not tied to marketing, hype or simply a desire to work predominantly with new products. If only the perception issue didn’t get in the way. I’d be interested in your thoughts on how specifically we could make VFP cool – what would it take (and I suspect you will focus on technical items) to make you label VFP cool in your mind? Is it the SQL items you mentioned, the event binding perhaps, or other areas? Myself personally I’d love to see multi-threading available natively in VFP.Finally, I apologise if I’ve misunderstood some of your points. If so, please point me on the right path.Warm regards,Craig

To CraigSee my inline comments below….Your statement ‘In my opinon, “coolness” has little or nothing to do with the matter’ is I guess the main point I disagree with. Coolness (ie the perception of the product) has everything to do with it in my opinion. JVP: I agree with you that perception is reality. The point I was making was that hard core VFP developers who believe the product is “cool” will need to be satisfied with that. i.e., the hearts and minds of those who have a different opinion will not change. Further, it is beyond the sphere of influence of those outside of Microsoft. Don’t forget, VFP has had a steadily declining role for about a decade. Is it a great tool? Absolutely! What I don’t do is confuse my personal subjective viewpoint with my objective opinions about VFP as evaluated against the backdrop of the I/T marketplace.It is for this reason that I don’t get involved in the .Net vs VFP technical debates (in that regard I just hedged my bets and built strong VFP and .Net teams at Talman).JVP: Most debates like this are not productive because those on the weaker side (objectively speaking) tend to over-evaluate the strengths of their tool and those on the stronger side (again, objectively speaking) tend to under-estimate the weakness of their tool. The point being is that often, both sides tend to get emotional and subjective. Objectively speaking, VFP is not in .NET’s league. Whether you are talking technical ability or the marketplace – hands down, .NET beats VFP. Does this mean VFP is worthless? Of course not. However, if I was in a position where I had to mitigate risk and evaluate technologies, VFP would down – way down on the list. Would .NET necessarily win? No. Would VFP necessarily lose? No. Java could win – or something else. I, along with a few others, actually walked the walk when it came to preaching the “best tool for the job” mantra. That is why we often preached VB for work that involved heavy use of the Win32API. In a limited number of cases, VFP has a hands down advantage. That advantage however, has more to do with the skill set of the development staff. Can that advantage outweigh the long terms risks of sticking with VFP? Maybe – maybe not?…So, here’s my agenda… I think many products are technically weak, yet with the right ‘spin’ or marketing they can become very ‘cool’. I won’t give examples, or else the discussion will get bogged down debating them specifically – not my aim. While ‘cool’ may be subjective (as you state), I suggest that many uni students are being told what products are ‘cool’. How much better then when the products (for example .Net or Java) are actually very technically strong. Making them cool is very easy. OK, so there is no dispute with why .Net or Java are cool. They deserve to be.However, the crux of my argument is that VFP is also capable of being cool. Let’s assume that you think VFP is technically weak (I personally think it is strong, but again that is not the issue as I see it). My argument is that even if it were weak, there are a few simple things that could be done to make it cool. And I then listed off a few in section 3. of the post.JVP: I agree – spin is everything. If MS promoted VFP – it would succeed. I asked Bill Gates back in 1998 why VFP was not being marketed to win. The fact is – VFP makes enough money to keep afloat. However, it’s technical base is not one that is worth investing in. This is why the innovations have been sparse at best. The main reduction in overall VFP programmer size is not due to existing (and possibly disgruntled :-) Fox developers leaving – although ofcourse that is a contributor – rather, it is because there are not many new developers entering. And I contend that the reason they are not entering is because they don’t think VFP is cool, not because they have appraised the technical merits. I’d further contend that universities perhaps don’t take technical merits into account too heavily when selecting which tools to teach (however I am on un-informed ground here – certainly in my software engineering degree the recommended tools were often inappropriate – but that may have changed these days – another blog post perhaps…) JVP: I have said this many times – that the population of VFP developers is not being sustained with new developers coming into the fold. The question is why? The coolness thing is a symptom – not a root cause. I say that because I will then ask you why isn’t VFP cool? You may say – because MS does not market the product. I would then ask why doesn’t MS market VFP. You could then say because VFP is not cool – a circular argument. The answer Bill G. gave me was that it was a market that MS was not interested in investing in. Why? Because there was no upside. Look at where applications are today. They are distributed and browser based. The trend has been in reducing tco through reduced distribution costs. Hey – for Joe independent developer – he can make a good living writing and delivering apps in VFP. For MS – a multi-billion dollar world wide enterrprise – the economics tend to be bit different.Later in your comment you indicate scepticism with IT professionals that claim expertise, but instead dish out bias – on this issue I agree strongly. I cringe when I hear some Fox devotees try to push for Fox solutions when a non-Fox one is clearly superior. I should point out that I also get slightly frustrated when .Net developers do like wise. This sin exists in both camps…JVP: – See my comment above about how this tool vs. that tool arguments tend to not be productive.Your parting paragraph correlating demand with technical merit is actually what I wish the issue were. Oh how I wish the number of developers was not tied to marketing, hype or simply a desire to work predominantly with new products. If only the perception issue didn’t get in the way. JVP: Except that if you put VFP through the technical wringer – it will come out on the short end of the stick. What it does – it does well. That said, if I were writing a web app today – I would do it in .NET – not in VFP using West Wind. I used West Wind and was a big fan of the tool. That however – was nearly 10 years ago… I’d be interested in your thoughts on how specifically we could make VFP cool – what would it take (and I suspect you will focus on technical items) to make you label VFP cool in your mind? Is it the SQL items you mentioned, the event binding perhaps, or other areas? Myself personally I’d love to see multi-threading available natively in VFP.JVP: First, if you take DBF’s and the local data stuff out of the picture – you have pretty much taken away the reason to use VFP. From my perspective, it has been nearly 10 years since I wrote anything that used DBF’s as a primary data store. My Law Practice notwithstanding, SQL Server and Oracle have been pretty much it. I still keep my fingers in the technology!! Over on profox – they are going ga ga over OOP menus in SednaX. BFG!! As Ed Leafe put it well – he was using them in CodeBook in 1995!! To be cool, something has to be relevant. To be relevant, it has to be innovated. The topics you see in magazines – some of which I wrote about in FoxTalk between 93 and 99 – are in their 5th, 6th, or 7th go-around. There is simply not much new to write about. And….for the stuff that is “new” – it is outside the scope of what VFP does well. In my opinion, if you are going to stray in the .NET world – then go there. Of course, the com/interop stuff is cool. That however, is all that you really need. I doubt that complex data types will be exposed in VFP. Again, what can be done is limited. Things like true events, etc. – keep in mind that VFP has had that stuff for a LONG time. If MS wanted – they could have put that in VFP too. If MS is destined to keep its thumb on the product – there is nothing anybody else can do about it. The archives are full of those who have had grand ideas about marketing and promoting VFP. Here is the million dollar question (literally) – If you had $2 Million – and if MS would sell you VFP – would you buy it??????John

Great PostI encourage every VFP developper to blog, talk, make as much noise as possible about Visual FoxPro.VFP is a great great development platform (rather than tool)Th

I like your post. I have been using VFP for a while and I see a lot of potential in this tool. We can’t leave the Fox disappear!