>>>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}
>>
>>NET 1.0 and 1.1 apps still run great. They can't take advantage of some of the newer features of .NET. I think you're probably jumping the gun on your conclusions.
>
>Some of them do for sure, but what I wander is how many of those ended up as expensive failure.
>Overaly I was kidding a bit, so maybe you just took it all wrong.
>
>Cheer up :)

LOL, I didn't realize I was grumpy.