Like King Canute, you can keep telling the sea to go back but it isn't going to do that. VFP has had it's day, albeit a long one. I am not a .NET poster boy - I am currently coding PHP and Javascript and loving every minute of it. I can tell you this much. I used Fox products for 15yrs+. Since I stopped using VFP and started using .NET, there isn't a single thing about Fox that I miss. Largely, its just a distant memory. I am currently using a super-cool PHP framework that reminds me of bot Fox and .NET in some ways. I have used very cool Javascript framework too. Thing are just done differently on other platforms. Embrace the differences.

>>Dragan
>>
>>>I don't see dot net as a mature product yet
>>
>>I know you of old and have great respect for you. However, your above statement is simply not realistic.
>
>"Irony is one such metal word as goldy or bronzy" (Baldrick)
>
>Then VFP was just too mature, having gone the full cycle from usable to polished in eight years, whereas dot net is a normal M$ product to which features are added indefinitely, so eight years don't mean much. You ain't seen nothing yet, the best is yet to come. Not the line you'd expect from a mature product. A makeover, maybe. A facelift, maybe. But "and now in the next version we will have the ability to do X...", no, that's just not a sign of maturity, it's a tacit confession that all the previous versions were still unable to do that.
>
>I don't know... somehow the whole concept leaves me cold. Actually, the concept of common runtime is good; you can say it's an extension API so your app can tap into that kind of system resource, fine. There was once the RMS on PDP and VAX - the record management system, which was basically OS level code for handling tables and indexes. Want to write a record? Call API. Or have your compiler plug into it. And any language which used these services was able to read and write data that any other language could read and write - because the OS service was actually doing it. Dot net may be an excellent extension of that idea on much more than just tables, and that's fine as an idea.
>
>However, in execution of this idea I find many things which were unnecessarily complicated - too many hoops to jump through. Can't scratch your nose, must declare intent to access body parts namespace, must instantiate a binder object which will then instantiate a scratcher object to which then you pass an intermediary bodypartset object which has a nose as a member. Not my idea of enjoying my work. Seems to be too much has to be done just to please the compilers.
>
>Which may not be the case with the dynamic languages - but when were they introduced? A couple of years ago, i.e. about five years after the first viable version of the runtimes. A clear afterthought, and, again, a major feature added late in the game when the coach changed their mind (oh yes, he's a plural but has a single mind :).