>James, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's no answer to your question that will bolster your argument. The history is just not relevant. I understand where you are coming from, but I really recommend against using this argument.
>
>The fact that VFP had OOP doesn't change the fact that there is a learning curve with the .NET framework. And to be honest, while neither C# nor VFP are "pure" OOP, I'd have to say that C# arguably is a bit stronger in certain areas of OOP than VFP. But even if that weren't the case, I know some good Fox developers who were strong with OOP (or claimed they were strong with OOP) who still took months to get up to speed with .NET.
>
>Yes, your OOP background with VFP, and your work in a multi-layer enviornment with SQL Server will help - if ANYTHING, you should be empahsizing the latter more than the former.
>
>If you want to convince someone that you will be able to contribute to a .NET team - showing your boss that you can build functionality in .NET will have far more merit than the other arguments you're trying to advance.
>
>So here's what you do: take a portion of one of your company's functional areas and develop a good strong prototype. Try to build it in such a way that you're covering multiple layers. Yes, this means an investment of personal time - but if you can demonstrate ability to produce something, if you can show through a few kinetic processes and a few knee-scrapes that you're somewhat comfortable with the development environment and the language and framework, THAT might wind up speaking volumes more than whether VFP was MS's first flagship OOP product (which is debatable history). Years back I took an approach similar to this, and was successful.
>
>I know this is a bit shift from your direction, but I really do advise re-thinking your plan. I hope this helps...

Great post!