>I must say that while syntax is just a very small portion of .net, imagine if there were a dotnet language that encompassed the benefits of VFP and used VFP's syntax. The learning curve would certainly be different and there would be far more VFP developers making the jump. It would be like adding 3000 classes to VFP and web design capability.... Ok, wake me up, I'm dreaming again.
>

The thing I miss most in .net is not the syntax - vb .net is very very rich and imo has a lot of stuff I often wished were in VFP - but the table based class libraries etc. The inheritance model of VFP makes more sense to me - but a lot of that is familiarity since class libraries etc have been such a big part of my VFP life since I work with my own (and other people's) customizations of a framework that is already very sophisticated.

But now I'm learning generics and partial classes and extended properties and working in a .Net framework that is based on business objects and has amazing data handling stuff and easy wrappers for all the native and 3rd party UI goodies that I wish we'd had in VFP the list of VFP commands and capabilities I can't live without is diminishing. A lot of former VFP developers are making some real contributions to .net (probably by raising expectations in certain areas <s> )

I think depending on where you're coming from in VFP and where your entry point is in .net the transition doesn't have to be as jarring as I thought it was going to be.






>
>
>>There is no single language that is superior in all things. VFP does some tings better than .Net and .Net does some things better than VFP. Pick any language and subsitute for VFP/.Net.
>>
>>There is no reason in your mind. But in the minds of the people that own VFP, there is good reason.
>>
>>
>>>Believe me when I say that I am defiantly not in denial. I have been working with xBased languages for over 23 years now and have been working with C, C++, MASM, FORTRAN, VB, VB.Net and a handful of other languages all along the way so with me, change isn't the issue either. I agree that VFP is viewed as a dead language by the market and perhaps you are right that may be Craig's issue as well. I doubt it though. I'm guessing that he believes that the .Net languages are superior to VFP. The thing that sticks in my craw is that I don't see anything wrong with VFP as a language and it irks me that I have one less tool to work with now and for no reason.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Steve