>>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}
>>
>>
>>
>
>Take a look at Cetin's blog. He has a great way of looking at .net stuff from a VFP perspective...
>
>For example, take a peek at this entry:
>
>http://cetinbasoz.spaces.live.com/blog/

I am watching that one! :)
Still have no time to undertake NET, but challenge is mounting!