>I didn't see you applying that sort of logic when one-man-band outfits produced (say) web connection products for VFP. ;-)
>
>I've carefully watched recent open source offerings that effectively were one or two people doing things in their spare time and eventually were bought by other bigger companies once the technology was proven. One example would be the Trixbox telephony system which was adopted for use by some quite big companies and was doing very well before being bought by Fonality. Trixbox was effectively a one-man-band that did not charge, but that did not hold it back even though telephony remains absolutely fundamental in mainstream business.
>
>I'd agree that the market for this sort of compiler is difficult to foresee and questionable if targeted only for VFP, but that's not what the company has said. The EF (including EF4 IMHO) and sidelining of L2SQL has emphasized a great wallowing "data munging" hole in NET. If EtC can offer a solution whose managed code can be utilized alongside other managed code to manage data better, it's as much a winner as any of the other NET data products out there. I've suggested before that they may be wise to avoid the "VFP" label altogether to get rid of the stigma.

But isn't the essence of the product to compile VFP code into .NET modules? Kinda like marketing a Honda without mentioning it's a car.