Thank you for a very articulate and reasoned post.

>>I know... all we need is yet another thread on this topic.... but I must :)
>>
>>Does it seem to anyone else that the open source languages are actually more consistent than .Net?
>>
>>.NET has been through what, 4 or 5 data access methodologies now (ADO, LINQ, Entity, etc.)?
>
>There's really only one data access method : ADO.NET.
>The EntityFramework, if used, sits on top and provides an ORM alternative to Datasets.
>Linq is a general purpose (extremely useful) extension to .NET and has nothing specifically to do with data access.
>
>>WinForms gave way to WebForms which was supposed to give way to SilverLight but now SilverLight is the domain of WP7, not the future of desktop apps.
>
>WinForms is desktop. Web forms are for ASP.NET. Silverlight, if used, sits on ASP.NET and provides an alternative to Web Forms.
>
>>Sorry guys. Classic ASP gives way to asp.net with MVC but then the MSFT implementation of MVC is shite so we go with MVVM or maybe now MVCVVMCMVM?
>
>MVC and MVVM are design patterns - just as applicable to non MS developer environments (well, OK, MVVM will probably work best with WPF - but that's a strength of WPF rather than a weakness of the pattern)
>
>>If you were using open source DLR projects like IronRuby or IronPython you have been defunded. Sorry. What, you want to be productive in the IDE? Then go out and purchase CodeComplete and TestDriven and Reflector and blahblah.
>
>I find the IDE pretty productive out of the box (haven't seen a better one?). But surely the point here is that the IDE is designed to *allow* add-ins such as Reflector. If you wish you can write your own that seamlessly integrate the IDE. That, to me, is a strength rather than a weakness.
>
>In general it seems to me that all of the above are indications that the .NET framework is evolving and improving. Probably the only instance of MS actually producing something intended as a *replacement* is the one you don't mention : WPF instead of WinForms. Everything that was in .NET 1.1 is still there today. I'm not sure what strategy you think MS *should* have pursued? Not produced .NET at all? Not extended it or added to it?
>
>Personally, if I can use the same language, libraries and IDE to write desktop and web applications (and, with Silverlight, code for the browser) then it makes my life a lot simpler. I can even use CLR code with SQL server..
>
>>Sure the Fox can be a bit challenging in certain areas (multi-threading sticks out for sure) but I'll be damned if I can ever see being as productive in .NET for simple desktop apps as I am with the Fox. Being a small shop, .Net solves problems I don't have.
>
>But then I have a hell of a lot of problems that VFP could only solve very ungracefully if at all.
>
>>When VFP stops paying the bills I'm looking to Python or Ruby. Those languages look so damn lean and sexy and exciting!