>OK..I'll clarify this...it won't happen for some time.

So, you think it won't happen for some time since you think it would involve a total re-write of the product. i.e., you don't think MS has the resources to do this in a timely manner....

>FP kernal was not rewritten. Big difference here.


Again, you comming up with the kernel argument. So, you are telling me that in reality, FPW 2.6 was better setup to receive OO than VB 6???? Is this the argument you are making here?

VFP in reality as an xBase langauage with OO extensions....

Are you telling me that VB could not be a Basic language with OO extensions????

I think it is time is here to stop resorting to "anecdotal" evidence in your argument Craig. Alot of people say what you are saying. Eventually, it becomes an urban myth. MS is a big company, as we all know. If MS wants to get something done, it will do so. How quickly did MS make the turn from casting the internet aside to being the dominate player????

MS reaction to this not only stopped on a dime, it gave you 9-cents change.


So, will it take a long time. It might. But it has nothing to do with the "kernel" or anything else technolgically. You said it yourself, they did not rewrite the Fox kernel. FWIW, I don't know this to be true. I suspect it is, but have never heard anything offical. Regardless, if MS wants to do it, they will...





>>>Would people abandon VB? Some would, yes. But, VB would probably gain lots of new users too.
>>>
>>
>>I think very few people would abandon the product for gaining new features. In fact, few people dump a tool because of it. The failure to support some old features or some other shortcomming, sure. However folks don't dump tools for simply getting new features...
>
>I don't think they would abandon VB because of the new features. The few that would abandon it would do so because of perceived bugs in what I am calling a 1.0 product. There would be others that quit using it because they can't grasp inheritance.