>>>I too code in .net everyday and the app is actually an extremely mission critical system. I never stated that .net was not proven technology or unreliable in anyway. I actually believe quite the opposite. I was referring to John's comment on VFP and eTech's being unproven. I interpreted it wrong?
>>
>>To be fair to John, I took that as calling E-Tech's product unproven. I think if he was talking about straight VFP he might have used a different adjective.
>
>That makes sense, however, how is it any different than other products that compile to IL like those here:
>
>http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
>http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-6094937.html
>
>or does ET not work under the same principle?

The principle is "the compiler is as good as the conformance of its compiled code to what it should do"... which is as vague as it can get. The only possible trouble here that I would be looking for/at would be whether the VFP code compiled under eT.net does what it did under VFP, and if different, how? It may be for the better, who can tell without testing.