>>
>>Can you give us an overview of your experience with .NET? (innocent look)
>
>My experience stops where I had to dig into how you would do the following in .NET.
>
>Did you ever had the pleasure to create a flexible factory with .NET. A factory where you have a table (whether DBF, CSV, or XML), with meta data in it. In one of the columns there is UDF code in there that in VFP you simply could execute with EXECSCRIPT() or a macro. I've seen pages and pages of code and that even never touches the power of a one or two page VFP solution.
>
>And how about retrieving some base set of data from the SQL server and use that data for data munging operations? Sure LINQ can some of it, but it utterly limited in many respects.
>
>And my personal axe to grind is the static typed implementation. Why the F*CK do I need to write just as many text as functional code to keep the compiler happy. If I retrieve a table from the SQL server, I just don't want to jump through all kinds of hoops to get at the data. My general feeling of programming in .NET is the same feeling of programming in Borland C/C++ in the early 90-ties. WTF. The time of pure static and pure dynamic languages are over. eTecnologia has implemented an awsome feature. A choice between static and dynamic typed declaration.This avoids a lot of horror constructs just for the sake of keeping the compiler happy, while maintaining the possibility of compiler time (BTW, my opinion is that that is too late in many cases) type checking and performance optimization
>
>I've seen the announcement that C# is going dynamic, that would be interesting to see. At least they now are beginning to scratch the surface of understanding the power of dynamic languages.
>
>Sure you can create simple payroll applications in C# and VB.NET about as easily in VFP. But take a highly datadriven application floating on lots of metadata and you have a total different situation.
>
>And sure for anyone who is looking for a programming job opportunity learning .NET is a good choice, much better over than learning VFP, but that does not mean that .NET is better at writing certain types of applications anymore than that Windows 95 was tehcnically better than OS2 when introduced.
>
>After I've drawn the conclusion, I've decided to wait. Not that I've currently got time to do anything else than VFP development. I've got much more on my plate than I can handle anyways. And I don't see that change in the comming 4 years anyways.

I agree totally. .Net is another example of MS's moto that the more complex you make it the easier it is use. Complexity does not equal simplicity. eT and others developing new languages for .Net, may help in making developing in .Net much easier and faster.

Besides, it is my belief that one of the true cool features of .Net is the fact that the language the application is written in is irrelevant. They all compile to the same execution code. Mix and match languages. Use the right tool for the job. Use C# for tight, fast code, J# for those complex math problems, and possibly eT's Fox for data-centric solutions.