>>But that is a result of the lack of VFP's wide-spread acceptance (and no >database language will ever have as wide-spread acceptance as VB). If lack of >standardization is the reason why VFP isn't successful, it seems to me that >that would have applied to VB as well.
>
>I don't follow your logic here. Why do you feel that VFP's misfortune should also spell misfortune for VB?

What I was saying was that lack of standardization didn't prevent VB from squashing the competition, therefore I see no reason why lack of standardization would've prevented VFP from doing the same. In other words, there must be other factors (as I'm sure you agree).