Pascal,

Thanks, and I'm sorry that the discussion here has gotten a bit too personal at times. Hopefully eventually everyone will benefit from the end results -- if nothing else, at least we'll learn to know empirically where the absolute limits are.

My parting shot:

Scenario 1: I'm sitting on a wagon train, heading West and the uncharted territories, watching the civilized world disappear behind the green hills...

Scenario 2: I'm on a rocket, shooting for the moon

Scenario 3: I'm a curious programmer, staying put, trying to make a living and have some fun on the side, trying to "do the impossible"


Happy trails to you!

Pertti

>>Pascal,
>>
>>Thank you for your non-arrogant, intelligent and educated answer <bg>. I personally don't think it is "risky" to not be "100% VFP friendly" here on UT, although, I admit that it can get preeeeetty heated here at times with no apparently good reason.
>>
>>You make valid points about the difficulty of translation, and it may well be just too much in the end. It most certainly won't be a "turn key" translation. And yes, I went through the "Visual" and "Functional" automatic translation horrors when moving apps from FPW to VFP, gave up and redid my forms from the scratch. It was not pretty, to say the least!
>>
>>Not having seen any of the GUI stuff for the VFP.NET project, I have no idea how well that might work and how desirable the end result would be, but if it provides even a jumping-off point, that would be a huge help for a lot of people. Get the stuff transferred, then work it over with the rich .NET GUI tools. My biggest hope here is, really, that the middle-tier business level code can eventually translate to the .NET with at least 90-95% compatibility with VFP.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Pertti
>
>Let me end up this branch of the discussion (that left me a very bad taste in the mouth) with wishing you and the 'compiler team' all the luck (I think you'l need it).