Hi Alex,

actually, it wasn't always technologically feasible. Jim Hugunin was hired by MS because he was doing pioneering work in dynamic language development on the CLR, which has been helped by underlying changes made in .Net 2.0 and some of which are planned for the future.

Whether it makes sense to have the xBase system on the CLR is a matter of how you happen to program; the cursor engine is already there, so it's the access to the cursor engine (dynamic access) that is the difference. It makes a big difference in development style and efficiency to me, i.e., having the xBase engine available; so for me it would make sense.

Hank

>>First, Ken was never in the same postion as Milind. Milind is the Program Manager (Randy Brown's old job). Ken was Product Manager. They are easy to confuse, but totally different things.
>>
>>Second, Ken did not make the decision to not port VFP to the CLR. Spamming Milind with such request will not change the decision.
>
>
>Entirely correct. On top of that there is this statement from Hank:
>
>>>So if you want VFP to have the best of both worlds, now would be a good time to let Milind know. It's no longer technologically infeasible: it's only a matter of resources.
>
>It was never a question of technology. It was always feasible. It is a matter of resources and a matter of making sense, business or otherwise. Situation has not changed. It does not make sense to have the XBASE engine in the CLR. It won't happen.