>Not me, I respect brutal honesty no matter what camp it comes from.

Yeah, but there is a difference between brutal honesty and brutal conjecture. If Meader really has the inside scoop on what's going on, then great, but I would take him a lot more seriously if he was on the VS team, or even if he didn't work for a publication that would benefit from people migrating from VFP to VB.

>There is way to much fluff on the M$ Marketing Train, we need to hear from industry professionals who are not afraid to speak their mind regarding the direction we're all be led by being in the bigger VS picture no matter how loyal we are to our smaller VFP ccamp.

Industry professionals like the Gartner Group? MS info might be sprinkled with marketing hype, but at least MS is qualified to make these sorts of statements, and at least MS doesn't have a conflict of interest for reporting the rise or fall of a dev tool. There are very few "industry experts" whose opinions I value more than my own. All too often somebody is given too much credit because of an irrelevant set of credentials.


>And yes, as you have pointed out, we dont have direct confirmation at this point whether or not VFP will be able to play in the CLR court or not in the next version of VS so no point in beating "speculation" to death here. But for the record it seems pretty obvious to me that if they went as far as annoucing C# and J++ getting dropped and didnt include VFP in the CLR info that was divulged, I dont expect to see it in version 7.

Even if VFP is included in the CLR, would you really be surprised that it was left out of this announcement? How often have you read VS material that listed the VS tools that can work with COM, and VFP was left out? It wasn't because VFP didn't have the feature, its because the speaker/author was listing tools (s)he thought the audience would relate to or care about. It's no different here- we can assume nothing from the announcements thus far.