Michael,
That sounds logical to me, too.
Logic doesn't mean much when it comes to FoxPro and M$...
Kristyne McDaniel
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of
Pete Theisen wrote:
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 13:29, Kristyne McDaniel wrote:
There's no reason VFP shouldn't be updated as well, other than the desire
of the language owners to kill it. Surely we don't think the billions of
lines of FoxPro and VFP code are going to really be written in
Hi Everybody!
Google search on foxpro. Not bad. Nice to be noticed.
--
Regards,
Pete
http://www.pete-theisen.com/
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list:
Pete Theisen wrote:
Hi Everybody!
Google search on foxpro. Not bad. Nice to be noticed.
Yep, but there's 16,000,000 for FORTRAN, so I think it's as much a
measure of how long the thing has been around as anything else!
___
Post Messages to:
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 08:37, Alan Bourke wrote:
Pete Theisen wrote:
Hi Everybody!
Google search on foxpro. Not bad. Nice to be noticed.
Yep, but there's 16,000,000 for FORTRAN, so I think it's as much a
measure of how long the thing has been around as anything else!
Hi Alan!
Hmm,
Hmm, largely untouched by the great Mother$er as well. 2008
version [FORTRAN] in the
works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran
There's no reason VFP shouldn't be updated as well, other than the desire of
the language owners to kill it. Surely we don't think the billions of lines
of
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 13:29, Kristyne McDaniel wrote:
Hmm, largely untouched by the great Mother$er as well. 2008
version [FORTRAN] in the works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran
There's no reason VFP shouldn't be updated as well, other than the desire
of the language owners to
7 matches
Mail list logo
