>Of course they have resources...but just throwing resources at something doesn't mean it will happen...and we all know what happens if you throw too many resources at it.
>

MS has alot of talented talented developers...... Those are some pretty good resources....

>
>Of course it can...but there are things deep down in the kernal that prohibit inheritance as we know it.
>

OK then... what are these things "deep in the kernel"?? Just saying "things" is a bit ambiguous and nebulous. Can we get some technical specifics here??? Thnx..


>But it didn't take a rewrite of the OS. I don't care how much MS wants to say IE is integrated into the OS. If that were true, then it wouldn't run on Mac, Win 3.x, etc. Basically they just put a new shell on top of things.
>

How does MS being a dominate player in the net translate into an IE is/is not part of the OS argument??? The browser itself is a bit player in the whole thing. There is quite a lot more to MS's web strategy than the browser itself...

If the argument you are making is that to make VB OO, it would require a teardown- then fine, I see the analogy you are drawing. However, by your own admition, MS DID NOT have to tear the Fox down to make it OO. Why would they have to tear VB down to make it OO - with inheritance? If they did it with Fox, I think they could do it with VB.


>John, my sources are people on the Fox team at MS. I tend to believe them. The fact that they got OO, COM, etc. working at all is amazing considering the number of global variables that exists in the code. (This is almost word for word what I was told). Basically they took the FPW code and grafted in the OO stuff. That's what also allows VFP to have the amount of backward compatability that it has.
>

Well Craig, I talk to the same people, and I have never heard that a teardown of VB would be required. I hear a lot of people "say" things, that have no basis in fact. Too much of that goes on...<s>..

Once again, look at what you are saying here - that it was amazing they got OO and COM working in VFP. Craig, VB has been COM for a long time. You were able to create COM Components in VB 4. VB has been doing it longer than VFP. VB has classes.

Look at how inheritance works in VC++ - with virtual functions and the like. I don't believe for one moment there is a technical reason why the same sort of thing could not be implemented in VB.

I'm sorry Craig, but you have not really put forth a convincing argument that supports your position. A lot of he said, she said, and I heard it here and there - but no direct knowledge. I am anxious for you to elaborate on the specifics of the VB kernel - and why it would have to be town down. Or, is this what somebody told you. Or, was it something you heard. Or, do you know this to be fact. If you do, then posting some specfics here should be a trivial task.