I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but there was a statement from him that any VFP techniques that would be ported to dotnet would have to be somewhat modified so they adhere to standard programming practices. He acknowledged that VFP was not a standard language.

I didn't say that's why VFP shouldn't be part of the CLR. But I think it would change substantially if it was. Causing more shouting from the peanut gallery.

Also, I think from a business sense, it just doesn't make sense. VFP is not a popular enough language to be ported over. You hear stories about VFP user groups either folding or changing direction to maintain their membership. The number of job postings for VFP is almost nil.

Sorry, but I don't see a business reason why MS would want to port VFP to the CLR.

>Dotnet is proving successful because it does adhere to current trends. Did you read Anders Helberg's comments about Dotnet and VFP? Did you read it closely, or just see the words Visual Foxpro and jump for joy at the mere mention? His comments were something to the effect of VFP not functioning the same way as far more popular languages, such as C# and Java.
>
>What he effectively said was that VFP wasn't part of the CLR direction. You're saying this is why VFP should not be made part of the CLR?