>
>Seems to me that 98% compatibility will be extremely difficult for them to achieve. The .net feature set is growing with every release and people who are keeping abreast of the mainstream change wouldn't use it. The only people that woueld probably consider it is the die-hard fox guys. My point is that if you are going to learn .Net, learn c# or VB.net, don't hope for a vfp.Net. Even if they achieve their goal, what use will it be to use a language that has no support for generics or reflection, let alone silverlight or wpf.

It depends on what their target market is. Are they more interested in being a new .NET language or as a way of getting older VFP apps. into .NET (not that they're mutually exclusive goals, but it does change their focus). I don't think they'll be able to convince people to switch from some other .NET language to their version of VFP. I'd say they're better off with moving a VFP app into .NET. Once it's there you're able to use any of the other .NET languages in addition to VFP. Now there isn't nearly as much pressure to keep up.

I don't even think they need 98% compatibility - they could have a really nice niche market assuming they ever get to the point where you could get almost any older VFP application into .NET in anything less than a month of redevelopment time; so even 85% compatibility might be OK (assuming it was the right 85%). That would be a big win for a lot of shops who have invested a huge amount of time into their product (where a full rewrite just isn't possible). All the legacy stuff ends up in one project of your solution, and all the new development can go in other projects. I'm excited by the possibility, but I still have a lot of doubts as to whether they'll get there or not. It's not a matter of talent or ability - they've proven they have the technical chops to pull it off. It's a matter of focusing their efforts more and tackling some of the less interesting aspects of this.