>For those interested in trivia history, the reason skipped VFP 4.0 and went from 3.0 right to 5.0 was because at the time, VB 4.0 was already out and VB 5.0 was next, and Microsoft did not want to have a VFP 4.0 release when VB 5.0 was released implying it was somehow older than VB, etc. There were specifications for a VFP 4.0, and I have an old printed document in my office that says VFP 4.0 on it, but it was simply renamed to VFP 5.0 to be in sync with VB 5.0 at the time.
>
>i.e., version numbers don't matter anything worth a d*mn, and therefore whether or not Sedna is called VFP10 or not should also not matter to anyone. The important take-away point is that development of the product (of some kind) will continue. But, alas...
>
>In some ways, Ken, I think MSFT would have been better to delay publishing the roadmap for a few more months. I understand about needing to say something at DevCon this month, but "less is more" has never been more true.
>
>- Colin

If Sedna is not VFP 10.0, do you think we'll pay another $$$ to MS to acquire it?