Hi Kevin,

at that time, being tied to the CLR meant not being able to be fully dynamic: no one knew how to do it. That's one part that has changed.

The same reasons that the other dynamic languages are gaining popularity apply to VFP, except even more so to VFP (because, as we're all aware, VFP has been tuned over a period of 20 years to be ideal for developing business applications).

That said, IronPython, where bringing up a Windows form involves a single Python import and running the class, may end up being just fine: but a lot of it will be reinventing the VFP wheel (as Ed Leafe is doing with Dabo, and doing a pretty nice job of it).

So while the VFP trend itself is down, the dynamic languages trend is up; and Microsoft already owns a dynamic language ideally tuned to business applications. That seems like a no-brainer to me, but then again I don't have to defend a prior decision to dump it (and I don't mean that anyone I know made that decision: I understand that anyone I know is/has been just the messenger).

Hank

>There's an important line at the top of the URL that was initially referenced....
>
>"Python, Ruby, PHP, and JavaScript are becoming increasingly popular"....
>
>Many are moving towards some of those tools in some way. VFP is a great product, but every major trend is downward to some degree. That's not a slam. It's just that VFP is not gaining in popularity.
>
>Someone mentioned the RW enhancements in VFP9 as a counter-argument - nice enhancements, but long overdue (as well as better SQL-92 support). If it takes that long to add capabilities that are present in other products, it's very very unlikely that MS will invest the time and $$$ on a much bigger strategic decision. In the end, as others stated, it's a business decision.
>
>Years ago when the announcement was made that VFP would not be part of the CLR, I recall a number of people in the Fox community breathing a sigh of relief that Fox wouldn't have to stay "tied" to the CLR.
>
>Kevin