Yeah, I saw that but the "such as" makes all the difference. You've gotta think differently about this, though. If all the tools are getting integrated over time, then it won't matter if VFP is mentioned. See, I don't get upset at things like that; I get upset when something seems to indicate that you *can't* do something in VFP when we know you can.

Take XML, for example. Not one mention of VFP in the MSDN XML Design Center, yet several of our gurus have proven that you can write very slick XML parsers in VFP -- slicker and faster than VB. That really frosted my butt for a while until I realized that nowhere did it say I *had* to use VB or VC.


>Thanks for clarification. The page still states VB and VC++ and is quite leading. Here's the paragraph.
>
>The code that follows uses Visual Basic®, but the same tools for simplifying Web service creation are available in other Visual Studio language products, such as Visual C++®.
>
>All they need is to tack on - and Visual FoxPro.
>
>Those Microsoft VIPs are real bastards, terrible step parents and obviously could give a shit about the VFP community!! Two-faced bastards, I say. A simple mention of VFP in such a document would make suggesting a VFP solution a bit more exceptable. Why is Microsoft so afraid to give VFP any recognition?