>>Why target only VFP developers? Who else would want a VFP compiler at this point? Do you think new people are coming to the language? -- looking around at the available options and saying, "Yup, that's the one for me!" That hardly seems likely.
>>
>>I get what you are saying about the strengths of FoxPro. As you say, there are DOS apps still running and working. But why would those people want a .NET compiler?
>
>I have a client for whom I maintain a DataFlex application. (Anyone remember DataFlex?) I would like to convince them to rewrite the app using a large FoxPro application that I own as a base. I'm worried about the question:
>
>Why would we move from one deadend language to another deadend language?
>
>A VFP.NET would remove that worry.
>

It would? Maybe there is something fundamental I am missing about eTecnologia's product. I thought it was a tool to compile VFP code to .NET. (Is that incorrect?) I don't see how that makes VFP any less deadend.