>>Pertti, reviewing the user group there are hints that Etecnologia is far more ambitious than people are allowing for here. If people can forget that this is VFP and focus on what the tool actually delivers, the potential is impressive.
>
>Actually I agree with your idea earlier in this thread that they should not tie their product directly to VFP. Perhaps they would be better of shape it up and market it as Neo-xBase, xBase4Century21, xBase.Net / Inspired by VFP! Or something like that ;o)
>
>xBase is wider term, and existed before Fox and will exist after Fox. Simply there is handsom market pie dedicated to this concept, (now owned by VFP) so who ever get to it first, in acceptable way (price, compatibility,stability) will get to eat it. None of the existing players (dBase,xHarbour etc) are not there yet, so eT have great chance of claiming Lion Share of that market.
>
>If they choose to stick with VFP compiler idea/name then they might end up suffering pain of stigmata inflicted on VFP,
>in a ridicullous effort to kill that market after claiming it almost in full with VFP5-6 back in 90-ies.
>(BTW, Didn't you know you can kill market just like that, and easily create much bigger one? ... Just convince your customers that they are Fat&Ugly and they all need to shape up, and then rush them to your own shops to buy new clothes! Yeah right... That is what made Waren Buffet richest person on the planet... {g}) )
>
>What I need, is new full size xBASE language/product in NET, fully OOP, dynamic , 64 bit, and if possible with rich NET interfaces.
>I hold pennies in my hand, and will buy from first new supermarket that opens up in the area ;)
>
>
>If eT become my new Wallmart, then good for them. I wish Samuel & Co every luck & success :)

Do you consider xBase any less dead (to most people) than Visual FoxPro?

I guess that's not the point. The product seems aimed at those who want to continue writing in FoxPro, just with a .NET target. IMO it doesn't really matter what other developers think.