fP modernization

[Fairlight]

Simon--er, no...it was Larry Weaver Sr--said:
> Although this is likely a prejudiced audience, I know that many of us 
> have wondered where/if fP is going anywhere. How much longer before fP 
> can really get into the fray of the modern technology? Although we have 
> been using fP since TRS80 days, we are wondering if we should continue 
> to put additional time into the programs we have or should we "bite the 
> bullet" and go somewhere else. The next question, obviously, is where do 
> we go? Who has ideas and/or comments??

Although 5.6 had more meat to its features list than I personally expected
to see, I'm not sure it's enough, nor in time.

My best guess to the answer of how long until fP could really modernize is
that it depends on revenue from sales.  If there are not enough product
sales then there won't be enough money to subsidize development.  It's that
way with any software product at any company.

Personally, from a purely analytical standpoint, I think they'll get mostly
upgrade sales due to nested calls, added indexes, and 64bit I/O.  Those are
the three real draws to 5.6, IMHO.  But if the upgrade adoption rate was
higher than 20% of the 5.0 audience and 5% of versions past that, I'd be
very surprised.  I could be way off--I have no way of knowing what their
numbers look like.  It just doesn't seem compelling enough that you'd see
more than that upgrading.  I'm also going a bit off of what I've heard
about the 4.8 and 5.0 upgrade adoption rate from various sources.

As far as new blood...I'm pretty doubtful there'll be much in the way of
that.  filePro has been in a rut for pretty much a decade now, the second
half of that being the worst of it, where they need to advertise to get new
blood, but they need to modernize to be able to effectively advertise and
compete.  That's not a pretty catch 22, but there it is.

Will they wither and die, barely hold on, or rejuvenate the product and
flourish?  Only time will tell that.

If you're looking to move to something, there's nothing of which I'm aware
that's really similar in design to fP.  There are screen designers for the
vastly expensive Enterprise versions of Oracle.  I hear they're costly
and crotchety to use.  There are GUI RAD kits for *SQL engines.  There
are no terminal-based ones.  If you're looking to stay character based,
there is effectively no RAD software out there.  Everything I saw was
GUI--things such as Kylix and the like.  (To the folks that definitively
know, isn't FileMaker Pro GUI-only as well?)  If you want to go to a
web-based solution, you could stick with filePro and 1st or 3rd party
add-ons, or you could migrate entirely to something like PHP or Perl with
the SQL engine of your choice.  None of that redevelopment and redeployment
will be inexpensive or transition quickly, I can assure you.  Not unless
your application is as simple as a DVD collection listing. :)

Moving to anything will cost.  The questions are:  Will it be necessary in
the long run -anyway-, and will it cost more to do it under the gun rather
than at your leisure?  What is the best fit for your business?  What does
your business need in the way of features that isn't currently provided by
filePro, if anything?  (I assume there's something, although I've seen
people want bells and whistles just for the sake of having them.  Usually
they'd just haul off and get those then, not ask.)

Those are questions only your company can answer for itself.  

All of which seems like a non-answer, mostly because that's as close as
one can come without some assurances from fP-Tech.  And Bud at the helm
there...has been rather reticent to discuss anything post-5.6, aside from
some vague comments about a future fPXML product (features undisclosed)
and addressing fP wishlist items.  You can't function in a vacuum.  It's
literally impossible to make an informed decision about something when you
aren't being kept informed.  Personally, I don't think top-level management
realizes this.  If they do, they aren't showing it--in spades.

Since fP-Tech really isn't talking, the best you have to go on is what you
currently have, what you -guess- will happen, and a careful evaluation
of the alternatives that are out there which -can- be evaluated more
fully.  You can tell where MySQL is going in their next version because
they announce it conspicuously on their web site for instance.  I knew the
planned MySQL 5.x features before 4.1 was even stable.  Other companies at
least provide -some- sort of advance road map, even if the product isn't
exactly parallel--and no product will be.  Anything remotely analogous went
away long, long ago.

The real hints won't come from this community, as it's being kept in
the dark.  The real hints will come from looking at your alternatives
and deciding amongst the lesser of all possible evils.  The only people
in a position to really help you would be Ken, Bud, and a few others at
fP-Tech.  If past history is any indication, there won't be a substantial
response from Ken because he's not possibly not willing or at liberty to
discuss management-level decisions, and Bud just...is uncommunicative,
period.  The man admits he doesn't even read the list--he won't even likely
see this thread unless Ken or someone forwards something from it to him.
However, Bud did post a mgmt at fptech.com address [someone correct that if I'm
misremembering it!] to which one can address management level concerns--he
just won't do it in public.  Personally, I feel this is a lousy way to
handle PR, but it's the best channel you have to getting -actual- answers.
'Cos nobody -here- has them or can give them.  We're all still looking for
them ourselves, frankly.

Which may explain why nobody's really jumped on this thread except me so
far.  There's next to nothing to say, reassuring or otherwise.  Nobody
knows much (if any) more than you do.  I feel you deserved -some- response,
however, so that's my take on your best options for finding out what your
plan should be.  Not an end, but some meager means.

Bests,

mark->