Hi Lennert:

We are actually taking and hybrid position, some of the 1st. option and some of the second. Our target for full compatibility is VFP9, but to be a true .NET Language we had to extend the language with constructs like namespaces, enums, events, delegates, and more. This already is implemented and functional, but we need the feedback about these extensions.

We really need the feedback about what the Programmers expects from the 1st. release, specially what are the wishes, the most needed itch to scratch. Because we are talking about .NET some previous limits are gone.

We already implemented some obvious wishes:
1. Break the 2 Gb barrier for tables. More fields than the 255.
2. A true OOP Report based in the Form paradigm.
3. Strong typing as an optional feature.

But it would be great if the UT could setup a forum about the Wish list our fellow programmers have about a VFP.Net.

We want to make an open invitation to the Community to keep Faith in the power of VFP and to put their hands in action.

We need a more powerful VFP, no matters if it comes from Microsoft, from eTecnologia or from our great community. So this is our chance to make it happen, lets build the next version of VFP together. We are part of the community and truly committed to keep using VFP in the next level.




>This is an invitation to Etecnologia to define to the forum users what it wants to be.
>
>- Do you want to create a compiler for VFP9 to .Net, and remain in that position?
>- Or do you want to be the alternative VFP-manufacturer? Because by extending the VFP-languange in your compiler, you could supply and define a "VFP10".
>
>Which position do you want to take?
>And if you would like to take the 2nd position, would you like people to have additions made to the VFP10-wish list? Is it a good idea to make an Etecnologia-chapter on UT? etc. etc.
>Maybe others, reading this thread, can expand or comment on the idea of ET (the whole word is too long, so I propose the shorthand ET :-) taking VFP further beyond version 9.
>
>Maybe you (ET) don't know still, which is also a perfectly sound answer. But I (and maybe others too) am curious about your (present and future) position.
>
>Lennert