Talk:Visual FoxPro

Intro rewrite

I have added the Intro rewrite template to the article, the introductory sentence is incomprenhesible to a casual reader. WideArc (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to dispute that "the introductory sentence is incomprehensible to a casual reader." Actually the first sentence is quite informative and in a similar style (and containing similar content) as other programming language articles. (See C++, Perl, Ruby (programming language), C Sharp (programming language), Fortran, and so on.) --71.56.222.63 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. For comparison, the intro sentence is

Visual FoxPro is a data-centric object-oriented and procedural programming language produced by Microsoft.

while the C++ intro sentence is

C++ (pronounced "see plus plus") is a statically typed, free-form, multi-paradigm, compiled, general-purpose programming language.

All of the intro sentences you mentioned are essentially incomprehensible to someone who hasn't worked with programming languages, but I don't think there's any good way around that. I've removed the notice. 24.220.188.43 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

an article about vfp without mentioning the "rushmore technique" is not complete, to say at least. Rushmore is the main (and only?) reason that microsoft bought this product.

Merge discussion

I'd like to suggest merging FoxPro 2 into this article and then renaming this to FoxPro, maintaining the existing redirect from FoxBase and making this an article that covers the entire product line from FoxBase to VFP9. Anybody have objections, or suggestions on better ways to do this? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see why we have two articles either. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The FoxPro and VFP articles state recommend consolidating under VFP. I would suggest consolidation under just FoxPro as it is/was the core product. (Maybe even FoxBase?) --DAZMasters (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Then, apply equal criteria and make an article with cover from QDOS to Windows Me. I have work from 1994 wit CA-Clipper / FoxPro 2 / Foxpro 2.6 for Windows / Visual Foxpro 6 to 9 and have a clear frontier in DOS and Win products.--Museo8bits (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Broken Link

The external ref name=foley2007 is broken, probably because ZDnet has archived the article. If anyone knows how to access the archived article, pls fixD A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Change of tense

I have changed the intro to present tense. This is on the basis that, even though Microsoft no longer supports or sells Visual FoxPro, the product still exists and is still in use. So the present tense is appropriate. And, on that basis, it doesn't make sense to say that it "subsequently became object-oriented". It has always been object-oriented. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dujo:, I see you have added some info re end of support. That's good. But I have reverted your change of tense in the opening sentence. Despite the fact that support has ended, the product still exists and is still in use. On that basis, it is correct to use the present tense. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)