Andrew MacNeill - AKSEL Solutions

Developers hate documentation. I don't write that as anything but a statement of fact. Documentation, once an idea has been put on paper or in writing, is instantly out of date. And if it's out of date, what's the point? In fact, sometimes I think the only people who like documentation are those who: a) are paid to write it (technical writers) b) paid to prove it exists (legal) or c) paid to show some form of output for a failed effort (managers) Even online documentation is out of date. Going to the MSDN site for virtually any product now has a "Applies to version" because the functionality changes regularly and even then, you will always find an article that was written once as an example of how to do something right, that has been commented on to the point of how not to do something. But now even worse, you find a link or a post you like. At the time, you wanted to quote it, maybe even copy it, but attribution should be enough with a link, right? But

UPDATE:  VFPX is being moved to GitHub  and its initial conversion looks well underway. I find it interesting that Visual Studio is celebrating their 20th anniversary  and the post even made mention of FoxPro (see the comments) and despite all of the growth, it's still a tool kept in some people's toolbar (even back as far as 1997). But moreso, the open-source  VFPX is more than 10 years old (I believe the official birthday would have been around June , 2016). Nowadays Microsoft is open-sourcing more of its underlying code. I'd like to think that if they had this attitude 10 years ago, VFP would have been open-sourced but that's doubtful. The proprietary VFP engine and concepts have made its way into countless Microsoft products. I always think about open-source projects as a bit of leap-of-faith. That's because open-source projects aren't always like the public domain projects of yore. By their very nature, they rely on a group of people providing feedb