>Damned, but I hate assumptions and inconsistency!!!
>
>Just how do you know that "it would require a complete re-write of VB"??? And even if it did, did we not get a complete re-write of FP with VFP 3??? Also, though I hardly paid attention, it seems to me that VB got some heavy re-writing between versions 4 and 5 and 6. Seems to me that the VB 'team' is (probably) staffed to rewrite VB at every release.

Because MS developers have told me this. Not the marketing people...those who know what's really going on. Read any VB magazine for a period of time and you'll see the VB gurus say the same thing.


>
>Your "MS has seen Fox programmers struggle with OOP..." may be true (who can say?) BUT it contradicts a statement you made a few days ago that the LAST thing someone coming from FP should learn is OOP. I wonder why the same wouldn't apply to VB and real OOP??? I wonder why the VB team could not engineer a new VB with full OOP in such a way that all of the old stuff would still work??? Is it only the VFP team that can do that???

Doesn't contradict at all. I tell people to do OOP last for many reasons. One of which is OOP is not easy to learn.

No, OOP is not restricted to VFP. But, they didn't need a complete rewrite to put it in there either.

>
>While I'm on the topic, this urban myth currently floating that VFP is burdened (code bloat, complexity, etc, etc, etc) by retention of "legacy functionality" is nothing more than SPECULATION.
>Speculation and opinion is fine when it is identified as such.

Wrong. MS has publically stated this.

>
>Regards,
>
>Jim N
>