From my talks with many companies who continue to enhance their VFP based applications and products, many are adding .NET functionality (like ASP.NET and XML Web services) to integrate more .NET into their VFP applications. Not every company has the ability or resources to build a brand new application from scratch, so interop is key for them to add more functionality to their existing and evolving VFP applications. With interop you do not minimize the best of both worlds with partial capabilities, and instead you bring the best of both worlds together to do more.

I agree with your statements - though I'd like to add one observation.

Along with the factor of available time and resources, there's another variable I've seen that enters into the decision of a total re-write versus an incremental/integration approach.

Organizations that have well-architected Fox apps, good internal processes, etc., are sometimes more interested in retaining part of their code base - whereas shops that compromised along the way (which can happen for many reasons) seem more likely to rewrite, even if it means a longer timeline, additional $$$ outlays, etc.

In the case of the latter, I've seen management reactions that equated 'seat of the pants' development practices with the technology, and just want to get out of the technology and get a fresh start with a new one (and in some instances, new people).

In addition, some with influential positions in I.T. shops will do anything to get out of the COM world and what they believe is necessary to broker it. Yes, there are biases all around, but it's a reality.

Kevin