John,

>>
>1. People are affraid that VFP is going to be discontiniued in the long run. So every clue that points to this direction is jumped on.
>>
>
>If people are concerned about this, and if people think this is a possibility, all the more reason why people would want to look at other tools..

Yep, this is one possiblity, the other is gaining as much info on VFPs future as you can get an guess there will be a VFP 8.

>2. Integration of two or trhee different languages brings technical and knowledge problems, especially for a small team and single persons.
>>
>
>Only to the people that did not take time to learn...

I think the word 'take' could easely replaced by 'have'. As we both know there are so much technologies and new products we already must/should learn you could easely make a full job out of learning. I think most of us are really selective about what is worth learning.

>>
>3. I don't know why you insist to look at VB 7. Personally I think that the combination of VFP and C++ is a lot more powerfull than VFP and VB. O.K. C++ is more difficult to learn than VB, but thinking outside the MS box might be another choice (Delphi).
>
>VC is a hard pill to swallow. Most things that a VFP developer would need to do are accomidated in VB.

This has never become quite clear to me. What exact things can be done in VB and cannot be done in VFP and is really worth the cost ?

>Of the two environments, VB is the easier and more correct path to go down...

I agree, but if you're a hardcore VFP developer looking for more absolute power, C/C++ might be the tool you're looking for.

Another thing: What are your thoughts about other development tools like J++ and Delphi ?

Walter,