There are a lot of things I have used and like in VS, but the EF (and other ORMs) are not among the things I like. I've described in my blog why an object-based solution driven by metadata is vastly preferable to a generator-based solution.

The idea that others will advance and extend the solution is the point I was making in my blog entry: with VFP a domain expert could, and very many have, done it all themselves, with the help of frameworks and mentoring and many times without assistance.

I've never heard any from MS disparage dynamic languages; I have read MS MVPs writing it (within the past 2 years); and I have read first-hand reports of MS salespersons disparaging VFP (back in the day) because it wasn't a serious language. Making real-world, line-of-business, solutions only doable in LightSwitch by learning C# or VB.Net is a slap in the face to the would-be domain expert developer. MS has been working on this for over 2 years; VBx was in early development in 2007; they could have if they wanted to. Actions speak at least as loud as words.

I don't think there is anything wrong with producing a tool that lets domain experts create trivial but useful programs without programming. I suspect it will be used for those small projects that bring incremental efficiencies to organizations, and I am in favor of empowerment of those with the knowledge. What it does not do, and what it could have done, is open up the world of complex domain software development to domain experts, in the same way that VFP did (and still does).

As for the future? Well, as we should all know, where there is sin, there always has to be the possibility of redemption. <s>

>I won't totally write-off Hank's comments, but he's commenting on something that he's only seen on video. I saw it in person earlier this year. I have yet to play with the bits. I was skeptical at first, but what I have seen is impressive. I can address some of the areas I know about:
>
>- Template/Generated. It's no different than selecting any other template in VS. Perhaps Hank needs to look at how other VS tools work, particularly Entity Framework.
>- Nothing wrong with generating C# or VB code. In fact, that opens up the possibility that many more people will be available to enhance/extend the solution.
>- Visual Studio vs. xCase. Visual Studio is a developer tool. I place xCase in the realm of a DB tool. We all know that VS is not that. It does have some cool DB capabilities, but it was never meant to compete with xCase.
>- I never heard anyone from MS say "that serious programming can only be done in a statically-typed language".
>- Dynamic languages. I had a discussion today with Jim Duffy about using Dynamic Languages with LightSwitch. The bottom line, this is rev. 1. MS was smart to target C#/VB in the first rev as it gives the product better market traction. Nothing stopping MS or other companies from creating LightSwitch templates that use a Dynamic Language down the road.
>
>>Develop and test at the same time? Imagine that.
>>
>>Despite the reference to VFP, not everybody is impressed. http://blog.prosysplus.com/2010/08/lightswitch-or-bait-and-switch.html