I understand all that. I'm not suggesting that they stop. But from what I understand, they are working on a few things. The compiler is one, the local data engine is one, and the language syntax is a third.

Given that, and the fact that everything in .NET compiles to a common representation (MSIL) it shouldn't matter what language you write the language syntax in (in fact, I believe that he said earlier that they could be written in any of their supported languages). So, given that, and given that I'm a business and process wonk <g> I don't understand why they would spend extra time on the language syntax (given a limit to the resource time) so that they can focus on the first two. IOW, just state that the following 200+ functions in the syntax already work and go from there.

yag

>Why not just use the VFP functions for .NET that Kamal and Flash put out there over 5 years ago? For folks that want the similarity, doesn't that solve the issue?
>
>There's a big difference between a rewrite using some similar commands and the ability to compile existing work in NET.
>
>And the compiler comes with a local data engine that (I'm told anecdotally) manages autospanning to disk.
>
>I'm not aware of *any* current alternative that offers these attributes.