>>Right. Inheritance (which is what you get with VFP subclassing) is pretty much frowned on. There are exceptions, of course. Interfaces, Composition, Aggregation are much better OO practices.
>
>Wow, just wow.... I will look another way, that is so wrong... Interfaces are (or should) not even be mentioned along OO and inheritance is one of the four pillars of OO, that is all that I will say, I had this conversation before here and I will not engage again..

Inheritance being one of the four pillars is hard to argue ;-)
And I am with you that interfaces are less important when seen in comparison to inheritance from eagle POV - but they ARE probably THE most importan "implementation detail" needed to get OO going on problems targeted by MI in languages capable of MI.

Craigs "Interfaces, Composition, Aggregation are much better OO practices." would be unassailable in "more fitting to the characteristics of C#/Java languages" - but the main reliance in deep/god class inheritance in vfp as seen in most projects is much worse. Composition and Aggregation woefully underused in most of the code I see. My personal POV is that interface capability in vfp was done only to work with activeX, where it is the foundation, but that interfaces are not needed in weak typed languages as much as in Javaesque ones. The importance or need for interfaces comes directly from the contract need in static languages, but practice with them certainly is needed there ;-) And the original question was about moving from vfp to Dotnet ;-)