>>This is where my experience differs from yours. My app works very well in DOS. While upgrading it to VFP I was surprised that I litterally had to rewrite every single line ..., that is not necessarily a VFP problem, but it _is_ a surprise no less.
>
>You know the story of two kinds of lazy programmers... so when I realized how much work it is to port my forms from FPD from VFP, and seeing I'll have to do same things over and over, I sat and wrote a converter. My 2.6 screens were using alias.field, but the generated program always made it m.field (used insert/gather), so all the Valid and other functions used m.field syntax; this meant I had to accomodate for custom methods on my forms and parse/replace all the function/procedure/variable names and port them to new syntax (thisform.field.value instead of m.field, thisform.routine() instead of routine() etc), but once I got that to work, it worked like charm. Maybe writing such a thing would be an overkill in your case, but I sure needed that - I'm planning to convert some 40 apps with few hundred forms.

Dragan,

Again every situation is different. In my case, my explicit task was to come up with an OO solution, no only "dans la forme" but also "dans l'esprit". I'm sure with all the (natural) languages that you know, these few French words should not pose be a problem to you :)

My problem was not to convert a DOS program to Windows, they are perfectly happy with the DOS program as it stands now. What they wanted was a rewrite so that they could have the advantages of OO. There is absolutely (as you know) no problem to do this in VFP and I'm sure that the finished product would be better than if I would have written it in another language. But corporate software development being what it is, you have to be able to sell your stuff too.

That being said, I would not be surprised if what you are developing could be a huge commercial success.

Marc