>Hi Jess,
>
>My argument is that even if VFP does not participate in CLR, WIN Forms and Web Forms it should be seen as part of the Dot Net strategy and not some obscure development language.
>
>If you see some the things that MS is coming out for the Dot Net like ADO+ which has very VFP like data access syntax. Does this mean that an more advance language should not be put in the limelight?. The way I see it, is that VFP should also be promoted as a viable development language and not to let be placed as second tiered tools. Either that or just kill it. Otherwise,
>this will cause VFP to die a slow death and I am very sad to see it go this way.
>
>The way VFP hands data is second to none and with the NET, if you cut out all the hype you will see data. This is where VFP can do wonders.

I might be the first person feeling sad why VFP is not included? But logically, since VFP is unclear yet on CLR, WEB & WIN Form support, no related topic to discuss about. In Visual Studio, VFP's role is data intensive middle tier and MS solidifies it on the next version, but with .NET, it's a different issue and technology, and VFP's role is still blurred.