« My Bucket's Got A Hole In It | Main | Liar, liar, pants on fire! »
May 14, 2007
Denial Isn't Just a River in Egypt
A little over a month ago, the Microsoft Corporation officially announced that they will not be releasing any new versions of its relational database software, Visual FoxPro (VFP). The news came as a surprise to many of the developers in the FoxPro community, but those developers must have been in denial or had their heads buried in the Hentzenwerke “Hacker’s Guide” because the handwriting has been on the wall for months. Years! Decades?
To paraphrase Garrett Morris’ Chico Escuela persona from “Saturday Night Live”, “FoxPro has been bery, bery good to me”. It has provided me with an above average income and a comfortable life style (once I kicked all of my kids out of the house). More importantly, Visual FoxPro and before it, FoxPro for Windows and FoxPro for DOS, has been VERY, VERY good to thousands of small to medium sized business as well as some Fortune 500 companies. A VFP application is used to run the operation of the Chunnel (the underwater link between England and France). During the first Gulf War, FoxPro was an integral part of the military’s JFast application which managed the deployment of troops and supplies. There are many other high profile applications, but my point is that mission critical applications created by FoxPro developers provided reliable, efficient, and economically sound solutions to real world problems. ECONOMY is one of the reasons that Visual FoxPro is one of the best selling application development software tools IN THE WORLD. It is reasonably priced and is “self-contained”. i.e. For the most part, it has it’s own reporting capabilities, user interface capabilities, and data storage capabilities. Those are the basics of most data-centric applications. Of course, it has many, many more features than just those basic capabilities. I could go on about my devotion to VFP and why I (as well as many other developers, world-wide) love it so much. Nevertheless, the fact is that Microsoft is going to support Visual FoxPro only through 2015, so there is no sense in denying it any longer. VFP is on its own.
Notice and this is very important, I did NOT say that VFP is DEAD. I just said it is on its own. Why? Because 2015 is eight years away. Who knows what will happen by then? I, personally, am still maintaining applications written in the mid 1990s that the clients love and couldn’t do without. I expect to see applications, being written today, around for another twenty years. The applications do EXACTLY (another key word) what the client wants them to do and they have no plans of abandoning them. Isn’t that the bottom line? So, if you are in need of custom applications and plan on being in business for the next 20-25 years, there is no compelling reason why you shouldn’t consider (or at the very least, do not summarily dismiss) having those applications written in Visual FoxPro. An honest, ethical developer should offer you all options, explain the pros and cons of each, and then help you to decide upon the approach that is best for you.
Posted by Dave Aring on May 14, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/384091/18315056
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Denial Isn't Just a River in Egypt:
Comments
Notice how your reference for greatness in your post is all about the bygone era of the pre .COM bubble? Nothing past that to beat the drum with?
I too support a FPD app that still works for a few straggling clients.
I have been doing app dev in .NET for the past 5 years now. For data I put it in SQL Server or something else that the client has.
Posted by: __Stephen | May 9, 2007 8:08:55 AM
Well said, Dave. FoxPro and the Hacker's Guide have been berry berry good to me, too. It's kept me gainfully employed since the 80s. My company supports a number of VFP applications developed, maintained and enhanced over decades. These are not going away just because Microsoft can't find any more shiny things to hang on FoxPro to sell a new version.
Posted by: Ted Roche | May 9, 2007 8:17:17 AM
Stephen...
Thank you for your comments.
I am the last person to start an adviserial relationship with a comment poster (because we love each and every one of you), BUT (notice that is a BIG "BUT") I feel compelled to respond to your comments. I may have misinterpreted your comment about "greatness in a bygone era" and if so, I apologize, but allow me to clarify. It was not my intention to act like a cranky old developer (set in his ways) yearning for "the good old days". Nay, my whole point was to emphasize how the applications I alluded to were developed in the past and, TODAY, are still viable. Then, extrapolating that fact, I feel we can safely ASSume that applications being developed today will still be running for many years (maybe 10-20). Believe me, and I'll bet you agree, every time I revisit an old DOS application or FoxPro for Windows application, the first words out of my mouth (AFTER I mumble to myself, "How do I edit a snippet, again?) is "You should think about rewriting this application." The user then responds with, "Why? It is doing exactly what we need it to do." For that response I have no viable answer other than to inform them that eventually they may request some functionality that is not available through the current version of the software. The phrase, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it" is usually uttered. I think you see my point.
With respect to your comment about doing .NET for five years and storing data in whatever the client has, I have two thoughts. First, you must have been on the cutting edge five years ago to start developing applications using .NET. Personally, I would have been very reluctant to have an application developed using "unproven" technology. From my point of view, Visual FoxPro is a tried and true, fully tested piece of development software. I don't know about you, but I look back on applications I wrote five years ago, and although they are working, I am amazed that I even wrote code like that. Of course, that is the benefit of hindsight and having gained knowledge of the tool over the years, but is it fair to the client to use them as a guinea pig? Secondly, what if the client doesn't have "something else" to store data in? If they have deep pockets, SQL Server is fine, but in my world, the business men (and women) I deal with are extremely cost conscious and anything that can do the job AND save them money is usually well-received.
Bottom line... Like I said in the original post. The custom software developer owes it to their clients to present the facts and use those facts to help the clients to decide what approach is best for their business.
Posted by: Dave Aring | May 9, 2007 9:54:38 AM
Ted...
Since I'm preaching to the choir (in your case), what say we do lunch and pick out new choir robes? I am suggesting something in purple with an embroidered fox on the back. Seriously, thanks for the comments. Believe me, it is entirely possible that .NET will be bery, bery good to developers for the next 20 years. In fact, that would be WONDERFUL; especially when the alternative would be that one is forced to, again, jump on the learning curve of, yet, another "greatest thing since sliced bread" development tool. All those who think .NET will be around (as a major player) ten years from now, raise your hand. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: Dave Aring | May 9, 2007 10:04:18 AM
Fantastic post Dave! It was as if you had read my mind and turned all my thoughts into a coherent well written summary of the situation. I'll be pointing my clients to read this should they have concerns over the Microsoft announcement, since you lay out the issues clearly and effectively. Great job!
Posted by: Steve Ellenoff | May 9, 2007 12:24:18 PM
Steve...
As promised, the $10 check is in the mail. To ME, sometimes it seems like too reasonable of a solution; after all, it is just common sense. On the other hand, by definition, IF it is common sense, we should all have it, and yet, we don't. There is an oxymoron in there somewhere.
Posted by: Dave Aring | May 9, 2007 1:34:36 PM
