>>>I hope all those who declared that moving VFP to be a .NET language was IMPOSSIBLE take a big deep gulp. They were had by FUD rather than thinking for themselves!
>>>
>>>cheers
>>
>>An EXCELLENT observation. I never believed for one second that there was any real limitations to taking VFP into the .NET world.
>
>You mean technical limitations. The word of the big honcho is as real as it gets.
>
>Reminds me of a story from back home, early eighties. The city's money for the road salt was gone - diverted into whichever direction the local politicians needed to send it. Come February, we get another week with lots of snow, and there's no salt. Everyone driving as if on eggs. The reporters ask the chief of the road services, and he says what he can: "the snow caught us by surprise". The headline, of course, reads "Surprised by snow in February".
>
>So it happened that next winter I worked with the guy (taught in the same high school), and someone asked why did he say such a thing. "Well I couldn't say that they came from the local Party HQ and told us to give that money for what was it, so I had to lie. At least I managed to say something truly stupid and get a top page headline. If I tried to wiggle my way out, I'd get a small note on the bottom of the page."

I love your analogies. Please, keep giving them to us. They are great.


>Back to our case - I never truly bought that "64 bit is impossible, there's too much code to rewrite". They already did a similar jump from 16-bit to 32-bit, so some base for it was already there. A lot of stuff actually works by calling system services, so that's almost transparent. I figure the only part which would have to be truly rewritten would be memory handling - arrays, buffers etc. Not really impossible, just hard. The "there's too much" was just a sign along the lines of "that would require too many people and time, meaning money, which we will not give, period".

Can you imagine that others, whereunder me, truly bought those stories?