>We were talking about this at the bar here in Miami last night and talking about future enhancements. Which of these enhancements would you like to see in a future version? Keep in mind that all are major and all would require breaking things that work now.
>
>1. 64-bit VFP
>2. VFP running on Windows CE
>3. Remove the 2 Gig limitation
>4. Support for CLR

Craig,

None of the above are very important to me. 64-bit VFP is irrelevant as long as NT/Win2K is 32 bit and I would not welcome another platform transition.

Windows CE is not the most popular OS on hand-held PC's and I have no urge to use a hand-held PC anyway (nor do I know of any users that do in my experience). If I ever do have to do any development for hand-held (perish the thought), I would probably choose VB.

If I require tables that exceed the 2 Gig limit, I would use SQL Server. SQL Server also gives the benefit of security and fault tolerance. In fact, I would choose SQL Server for any tables that would surpass 1 Gig.

I still don't understand what all the fuss about CLR is about - it sounds like a way to incorporate existing and legacy programs written in languages I have absolutely no intention of using into the web server scripting engine. What's wrong with VBScript? (or plan old VB in .NET?) It just sounds awkward and clumsy to me.

The things I would like to see in VFP is an updated Report Designer which can send report output to HTML, and object-oriented menu designer and back-end security. And how about some MS marketing for a change so I don't have to listen to people's criticisms and dismissal of my programming skills when I mention that I'm a VFP programmer?

That's what I would like to see. In any event, I'm currently focusing on acquiring expertise in VB/ASP and SQL Server (which I'm enjoying) so I don't really care about future versions of VFP except for building VFP COM or COM+ components that can be called from ASP.

Thanks for asking!

Cheers,

-JT