But I believe that Anders discussed it in his interview that VFP is not looked on too highly by the programming industry. I've discussed this in general with some of my dotnet friends. Their question to me is typically along the lines of what can VFP do for them. They don't see a need for VFP type functionality to be ported over.

The people who seem to be screaming the loudest are VFP developers.

PF

>Hi Tom,
>
>I think Drew has pretty much hit it on the head. One of the problems I recall is that there seems to be a disconnect at MS between high-falootin' data access schemes and the realworld. It's not that they're hostile to VFP's way of doing things, they just don't see the value insofar as trench mentality goes. To clarify: They don't have a trench mentality....I just don't think they see day-to-day line-of-business issues like you all do.
>
>Arg, this is making my ulcers regenerate. There are a few who do and we can only hope that they have a bigger and bigger say-so in the way things shape up.
>
>>Have you seen Drew Speedie's blog entry on this topic? Here is the link:
>>
>>http://blog.visionpace.com/2005/07/net_does_data_n.html
>>
>>
>>>Hi Sarosh,
>>>
>>>But the guy doesn't even know what the "4" in 4GL stands for! Egads!
>>>
>>>A lot of work is being done to make .Net more data friendly. I can personally attest to this, being a very recent ex-MSFT guy. I won't go into details but veyr very cool things are being done.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Anders Hejlsberg : I think interestingly that there's sort of a resurgence of interest in dynamic languages.
>>>>
>>>>Interesting atricle:
>>>>http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,1837434,00.asp
>>>>
>>>>Sarosh