It's not like the VFP codebase was beautiful even if you did get the C++ code back :-) I spent some time with Calvin on a few occasions going over some COM instantiation code in VFP with him while at the MS office and it was a tough codebase. Very efficient and optimized but full of hacks and optimizations that make for difficult code.

Me thinks that the code the compiler folks are using is not based on the original code base or at least not the bulk of it but rather reverse engineered. I guess you should be able to tell easily based on the performance difference (good or bad).

+++ Rick ---

>>>
>>>No, they haven't. All it takes is a decompiler and a lot of time.
>>
>>So have they decompiled the VFP.exe and built their compiler from there? I didn't think C could be decompiled.
>>
>>Don't get me wrong I think this is great, just trying to understand the potential long term possibilities for VFP that this enables. What about licensing, might Microsoft complain about reverse engineering if this takes off.
>
>You can grab something like IDA or IDA Pro and decompile anything. Of course, your just going to get assembly language back (not the original C or C++ code). Their is another product from the IDA Pro people, Hex Rays, which applies some heuristics to create C code, but it's not going to be perfect.
>
>Beyond that, I have no idea what the VFP++ compiler does. He may just be turning the P-Code into commands that make direct calls to the VFP runtime. Or something else. Craig likes to play lawyer, but without knowing the specifics it's impossible judge its legality or whether it violates some licensing agreement. As much as they'd like to make it illegal, reverse engineering is still legal.