>I disagreed with everyone I met on the break from being packaged in VS back when. I thought it was the demise of VFP. I thought (and still think so) that had VFP stayed in VS and the syntax brought into .net, even if it meant losing the local databases (and any compatibility with existing vfp apps) that the majority of vfp developers would have migrated to .net - some would have refused and gone elsewhere, but it would have given many VFP developers a level of comfort in the switch (like it did for the vb developers after much screaming about it). Even with the existing apps not being compatible - it would have moved vfp into the future and been an easier migration path for developers. Many may have still switched to C# (I was one of those after testing the waters with vb.net first) and some would still have left for open-source, but it would have been an easier migration for some to introduce them to the framework. As it is now, my days are filled with jumping between C# and VFP depending on the project I am working on...I would still be jumping around, but it would have helped to give customers a level of comfort knowing their product was in a MSFT tool with a future.


Tracy, VFP was doomed from the start. You might remember Visual J++. It was bundled with Visual Studio too, and it is no more. VFP would have gone the same route, even if it had been left in the package. It was it's own worst enemy. Too fast for very little money. SQL required the CALS and VFP didn't.