>I think you'd have one hell of a hard time selling VFP.NET into any even medium sized organization when you're dealing with a very complicated black box implementation provided by a tiny company. While tiny doesn't need to mean bad, it's big problem when you have a closed source solution of this kind that serves as an entire architecture. Compiler design is very difficult and very difficult to support once out and there are problems. From what I've seen of the company so far I'm not sure they are up to deal with the issues that are likely to arise of supporting a full platform of this scale...

Right-o. This makes me think of Borland, which was a relatively large company with excellent Turbo Pascal and Turbo C compilers. Although Pascal wasn't actually a mainstream language when Borland came out with it, it sure got a lot of attention and traction. In the end, Borland wasn't big enough to support those compilers, and things went south pretty fast forthem. Of course, part of the reason for that was the founder and CEO Philippe Kahn, an brilliant yet egotistical Frenchman, who in the final analysis was too big for his briches, as the saying goes, and left the company to pursue other, eventually successful ideas. Post-Kahn, Borland made a long string of bad decisions, beginning with the acquisition of Ashton Tate with its horribleterrible dBase IV product finishing off what wasn't already dead in that particular albatross.

Anyways, I think you are absolutely right stating that it takes a LOT of resources to build, sell and support a compiler, and a few guys in Miami and Guatemala (?) probably won't be able to handle the development, much less the support and marketing of such a thing.

I wish them luck, too, but I am hedging my bets by moving along the lines of VS .NET 2010, Silverlight and the MS RIA framework rather than waiting for this particular wunderkind to finally show its pretty face.

Pertti