<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: VFP X, take a look at VFP 9 first</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rickschummer.com/blog2/2005/02/vfp-x-take-a-look-at-vfp-9-first/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rickschummer.com/blog2/2005/02/vfp-x-take-a-look-at-vfp-9-first/</link>
	<description>Shedding some light on topics of software development, Visual FoxPro, saving our planet, paying it forward, and anything else I find important enough to share.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2019 18:50:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Stevenson</title>
		<link>http://rickschummer.com/blog2/2005/02/vfp-x-take-a-look-at-vfp-9-first/comment-page-1/#comment-1114</link>
		<dc:creator>David Stevenson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rickschummer.com/blog2/2005/02/vfp-x-take-a-look-at-vfp-9-first/#comment-1114</guid>
		<description>Great post, Rick. I agree completely. Your thoughts mirror mine in the March, 2005 FoxTalk editorial, which begins like this:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Almost two years after the release of VFP 8, Visual FoxPro 9.0 was released to manufacturing in December and is now available through retail channels as well as in MSDN subscriptions! As is usual in the Fox community, the announcement of VFP 9&#039;s release was met by a chorus of, &quot;But what about the next version?&quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Good grief. Get a grip, people. What comes next? Duh–get VFP 9 and use it!&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;BTW, the editor in me has to point out an interesting and funny ambiguity in your first paragraph (oops, should I have emailed you about it first?):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;i&gt;Over the last few weeks I have read postings and talked directly with developers who have speculated &quot;what&#039;s next&quot; for Visual FoxPro. Personally, I find it a time sink with no purpose...&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&#039;t think you mean that Visual FoxPro is a time sink with no purpose. *gd&amp;rvvf;*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, Rick. I agree completely. Your thoughts mirror mine in the March, 2005 FoxTalk editorial, which begins like this:</p>
<p><i>Almost two years after the release of VFP 8, Visual FoxPro 9.0 was released to manufacturing in December and is now available through retail channels as well as in MSDN subscriptions! As is usual in the Fox community, the announcement of VFP 9&#8242;s release was met by a chorus of, &#8220;But what about the next version?&#8221;</p>
<p>Good grief. Get a grip, people. What comes next? Duh–get VFP 9 and use it!</i></p>
<p>BTW, the editor in me has to point out an interesting and funny ambiguity in your first paragraph (oops, should I have emailed you about it first?):</p>
<p><i>Over the last few weeks I have read postings and talked directly with developers who have speculated &#8220;what&#8217;s next&#8221; for Visual FoxPro. Personally, I find it a time sink with no purpose&#8230;</i></p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think you mean that Visual FoxPro is a time sink with no purpose. *gd&rvvf;*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
