>>Those folks that complain that .NET doesn't do what VFP does should take a look at the other choices and see how well you fare there. Even bigger experience gap. VFP/xBase is a very unique technology and just about anything else will be different. But Different != worse automatically! It's just different but if you look at everything with the view that it should work like VFP when everything turns into a painful experience.
>>
>>Too many folks with rigid mindsets I suppose. If you do software a little open mindedness goes a long way toward learning and improving yourself as a developer.
>
>Personally, I've been disappointed with MS throwing away the strengths of VFP. By now we'd all should be doing repository based developing where resources are stored on the SQL server automatically and where application resources are stored in a database rather than having an exploding .exe file. Source control would come for free as a bonus. As I expressed many years ago, I'd expect to see a low cost entry development tool a'la what the big ERP/CRM guys are doing for at least a decade. If one really wants to you can sort of fake it with VFP as many resource are already tables. But in this regards MS took a step backwards, back to the flat old textfiles, sigh.
>
>As you say, for desktop apps there isn't a whole lot of choice. That's why I'm still hoping to see some development in here. Personally I don't like all the hoops one has to run through with a static typed language. I'm far more attracted to dynamic languages (with the welcome add one to use static type checking). I know I have to bite the bullet sometime, but I better be sure it is the right one.

What exactly do you mean by static types there? Everything in .NET is ultimately a type, and you can add your own to your heart's content.