>Hi Craig and all
>
>COBOL.net is also not a good idea because we'll lose much of what makes COBOL what it is.
>
>Ain't COBOL and VFP cousins, both are data intensive languages made for data. VB (whatever it's incarnation), C (ditto), Java (ditto) are not.

Nope. COBOL was designed as an accounting/financial language.

>
>Then why reinvent the wheel and make languages that are not data intensive to become data intensive. And who is giving data muscles to these languages, the VFP core developers.

I don't understand this? There are thousands of applications today in VB6.0 that are data intensive. There are dozens of .Net languages. You should pick something that's right for you and your customers, not because someone is giving muscle to it, trying to pursuade VFP developers to adopt it. In fact, I remember Ken saying that VB.Net would be a good choice for VFP developers, but the facts are that it's split almost 50/50 for VB and C#.

>
>The whole programmer (not just VFP) community is being taken for a (marketing) ride and the best part is we are riding it.

I've said for years that Microsoft is a marketing company, not a technology company.