Talk:Visual FoxPro

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. Databases (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases

Archives

1

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

I am disputing this statement (in the Code Samples section):

"VFP has an extensive library of predefined classes and visual objects which are accessed in the IDE by a Property Sheet (including Methods), so code such as the above defining classes and objects are only needed for special purposes and the framework of large systems."

The IDE tools are an alternative method of defining classes, etc., not a replacement. A programmer will use whichever method he or she is most comfortable with. Also, it's unclear what these "special purposes" are. And it's certainly not the case that the code applies only to "the framework of large systems" - whatever that means.

I will have a go at rewriting this sentence. But I'll wait for comments from other editors before going ahead. Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

In the absence of any comments here, I will BE BOLD and remove the above sentence. But I will balance that by adding some new material on the programming language and the IDE. Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

OK. I've now added quite a lot of new material, under the heading "Features". Comments and corrections always welcome.

And having done that, I am wondering if we need so much in the way of code samples. After all, Wikipedia is not a programming manual. Articles for other languages (such as Visual Basic and C) include less extensive code samples - mainly Hello World and other stuff just to give a flavour of the language. Should we do the same here? Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have now done some rationalisation of the code samples. I've included some much shorter samples in the sections to which they specifically relate, and have removed the much larger samples that were previously in their own section. In doing so, I have followed MOS:CODE:

"While there's nothing inherently wrong with including sample code, excessive amounts of it can detract from the content of the article itself; avoid writing sample code unless it contributes significantly to a fundamental understanding of the encyclopedic content."

If any editor disagrees with this action, feel free to discuss. Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply