>>>I don't care that somebody has different opinions than me... I just can't stand when people take the "My way is better than your's" approach while including phrases like ".NET folks up here don't get it". Not everybody needs change tracking or NULL dates or a local database engine.

>>No, you're right. Not everyone needs it. And that is fine, but then please don't tell everyone that every VFP application can be easily written in .NET. And that is what the message is from the .NET side. Again, you're limiting your options by restricting yourself to a limited technology.

>Are you seriously calling .NET a "limited technology"? Wow. If you had said it is more complex to learn than VFP I might have agreed with you. Or that it doesn't have a local database engine, for those dwindling few who still want that. But limited? Hardly.

Limited technology in the area of data handling, Yes. .NET has evolved from general purpose languages like VB, C#. It lacks the advanced data integration like in VFP. From a VFP perspective its datahandling technology is limited. This should not shock anyone as Microsoft itself is fully aware of that and it trying to close this gap (LINQ is only one step though) in upcoming versions. Now it would not be wise to blindly port your large commercial VFP applications with advanced usage of VFPs data centric feature into .NET.

>Maybe you meant .NET only supports Windows. That's a valid point. It's also valid to say ~85% of PCs are running Windows. That's a limitation I have no problem accepting. If I were targeting a Curly, Moe, and Larry OS I would be concerned.

Nope, I was not referring to that.