>>For starters, it is not part of .Net. If MS does not think enough of the tool to take it forward, why should the rest of the world have respect?
>
>Trey and John
>
>Why should VFP be .NET anyways? If it were it would end up being VB, as far as I can tell. VFP does what it does already, and maybe might go a different direction than the .NET. Why should every product in Visual Studio act the same?
>
>Its probably to our advantage that VFP is not a .NETer.

The more I think about it, I have to agree with you.
VFP's strength - standalone, don't-have-to-buy-15-apps applications - doesn't fit with .NET particularly well .