>>>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.
>
>Personally I suspect we are just habituated to the vcx and no comparable IDE until document view arrived and are still missing a nice view of properties and parent code. Programmatically working on class definitions is not easy in vcx or prg, but the difference is only gradual. But the vcx isolated vfp a lot. If you see the rampnt use of XML where usually class settings would incur less code (as only exeptions need to be defined) is at the same time a mark of the inflexibility of non-scripting languages and of the need to have an esperanto data exchange. The dbc killed the esperanto effect to a great part.
>

The inflexibility of non-scripting languages .... I'm not following you there. VB and C are not scripting languages but I would not call them inflexible. Can you elaborate?