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

I agree with you here.

>
>>
>>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..

I can only repeat what I was told. I don't know of specifics.

>
>
>
>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...

According to MS that was integral to becoming a player in the web.

>
>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.

That's what I'm saying.

>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.

Fox and VB were and are architecturally different. Whatever is needed inside the guts of the thing apparently was easier in FP than it would be with VB. Why this is the case, I don't know. This is what I was told.

>
>
>>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>..

Are these the same people that you referred to when you said the Fox team isn't bigger than a year ago?

>
>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.

Again, I'm not privy to the internal workings. I can only repeat what I've been told by people who are privy to this stuff.

>
>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 don't how things work in VC++, so I can't comment on this.

>
>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.

Along the same lines, you don't have the direct knowledge to support your claims either.

>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.

I don't have specifics. I discussed one day the idea of VB adding inhertiance and what affect that would have on VFP. I was told that for VB to get inheritance would require a rewrite of the kernal because something in the kernal prohibits this. We didn't get into specifics as to why.