Hi, Arto.

>>Ai I said, those are programming languages, VFP is not. VFP is a development environment with many different pieces that can't be ported to .NET.
>
>Really? It is not NET programming language but that it isn't programming language is a slander.
>
>See what MS says about this.
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;130456
>
>http://search.microsoft.com/search/results.aspx?st=b&na=88&View=en-US&qu=programming+languages
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dv_foxhelp9/html/5880b797-0850-400a-8279-fbcdb0cc98d6.asp
>
>F.ex. when MS writes "Comparing Visual FoxPro to Other Programming Languages" they are wrong with their own product, or are they?

You perfectly know that VFP is more than a programming language. When the "compare" it to others, they are basically generalizing things. My point is that to port VFP to .NET you need a lot more than to port any other regular programming language, in the sense that to come up with something that resembles VFP they should rebuild Winforms, add a report designer, and change the .NET framework to operate over a local data engine they are not providing, using a data access approach (record based, file-server oriented) that goes in opposite direction to the model they are pushing.

I don't think it would be a good idea.

Regards,