I wonder how many who voted to remove VFP from Visual Studio are now using .net? Would they recommend the same today?

>>I'm hoping that it is simply that this is below the radar and others will see this thread and take a closer look. If this all works (and it appears that it indeed does so far) it is truly something worth diving into.
>>
>>I REALLY would like to see MSFT's take on this. Did someone make a blanket statement that it couldn't or shouldn't be done and everyone took that statement as written in stone? Did this group of guys just stumble onto something? I find the latter more difficult to believe and think that they deserve kudos for getting to a point that MSFT implied was mpossible or not worth pursuing.
>>
>>Perhaps the subject line of this thread doesn't accurately reflect the possibilities...
>>
>>Shouldn't someone be shouting this from the rooftops by now?
>
>Required reading:
>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~ShouldVFPBeInVSDotNet~softwareEng
>http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~ShouldVFPBeInTheCLR
>Thread #469094 (beware, it's longish). Note Robert Green's words: "The community has made it pretty clear to us that they don't want VFP to become a .NET language, because what you wind up with really won't be Fox. Do you think you will feel differently a year from now when we are hard at work on VFP 8?" (message #471559 )
>
>Message #471748 by John Stewart: "Given that ADO.NET is the data mechanism for .NET languages, VFP.NET would lose many of the attributes of Fox.".
>
>I may keep digging for more .refresh() calls.
>
>*----
>During the search I found thread #442470 ... but that's completely out of context. But the overall tone shows how times have changed.