SNIP
>> In contrast, I can tell you that stuff we wrote for NET in 2002 was profoundly obsolete by 2005 and would have needed 4 rewrites to >>keep up to date with the latest-greatest which is the only way to guarantee that it is maintainable.


I have never heard 'pure breed' NET-sters say that {g}

...year 2001... Writing on the wall... Rewrite your VFP apps to NET 1.1 NOW - or die long painfull obsolete death ... Who ever still develops with VFP should be shot ...etc.

It would be interesting to know how many of those NET 1.1 visionary (right religion) apps died by now already, along with poor customer's money/time waisted.

Although I really really love VFP and I am perfectly happy with it , I will eventually venture into NET. I have seen recently blog by Joel Leach where he demonstrated some examples of NET going dynamic, and how it immediately made NET code 'make sense' {g}.
I sincerily hope dynamic language features will be greatly expanded in NET.
When these 'seeds' bring real fruits, perhaps moving to NET will become much easier thing to do, for us staunch VFP 'fools' {g}

By then NET apps written today will probably become ...hmm... uhm...I hate that word! ... How about 'easily rewriteable' ? {vbg}