>Hi,
>
>There always has been the argument, that with real windows control, VFP would lose PEM but the real gain would the ablility to utilize "automated testing or Quality control software". At the moment, you have to have separate test software, one for C++ & VB and one for VFP and this is a waste. Part of the problem where VFP is being treated as a step child by the Developers community. Remember that when VFP6 first came out it support MTS but does no support non blocking calls and this cause a lot of confusion, as it is half hearted implementation. We cannot have VFP always be one step behind on key areas of the MS programming model. At the very least it should be on part with VB.
>
>Regards,
>Kueh.


You need to keep in mind that VFP has some great features that VB doesn't have. Given the choice between performance and automated testing, I'll pick performance everytime.

The "half-hearted" attempt you mention was not due to slights from the Fox team. They were dictated by the Visual Studio what they could get in. They didn't have time to fully implement it, so they did what they could and called it a bug. This allowed them to fix it in a service pack. MS only allows bug fixes in service packs...no new features. This means that if it wasnt' implemented the way it was, we still wouldn't have MT DLLs.