>>Okay, now it's time someone here extensively explains to me what 'strategic' really means, in the United States and English language.
>>
>>Hi, Peter,
>>
>>Bottom line....VFP is a product (a great one), .NET is a platform.
>
>.NET languages depend on the CLR, which is a product. So, what's the bottom line? Okay, I feel the answer coming: Other parties are free to create CLRs, e.g. for other platforms. So, perhaps I should use another argument: .NET is only viable because MS has published IDEs that compile to IL, that can be understood by the CLR. And those IDEs are products.
>
>But hey, perhaps you can give a clear definition of 'strategic'?!


.NET is a platform just like Win32 is a platform. Of course you can also consider Win32 a "product" and it would be hard to argue against that, but the point is that .NET is "something" that one can run code on. That code can be compiled by many different means, and .NET is only one such way. (Just like VB6, C++, and VFP were ways to target the Win32 platform).

You are right that the Visual Studio IDE and Expression, and other Microsoft products are products that will have a lifespan just like VFP does. But then there are other companies that have their own CLR compilers. Lots of them. And yes, the CLR runs on more than just Windows. Different operating systems for instance. Also different devices, such as PDAs, phones, and watches.

This is all very different from VFP, which is a single, monolithic product that only targets the Win32 platform. C# for instance is an open standard, and anyone can go and build a C# compiler that compiles to the CLR or any other platform for that matter. The same thing would not be possible for VFP, which is a single product owned by Microsoft...

Markus