I agree with the points you have made regarding individual command equivalents. But still, I just don't know if that approach is the best way for a VFP person to learn VB (or a VB'er to learn VFP for that). Increasingly, I think too much attention is placed on exactly equivalent commands, and differences in general approaches are not addressed to the proper degree.

In other words, while it's certainly useful to be able to say "what's the equivalent of 'LOCAL'?" as a way of starting on variable scopes, or whatever, relying too heavily on this approach will ignore some of the alternate approaches available in one of the languages but not the other. I have heard an awful lot of VB people make absolutely erroneous statements about VFP because they don't understand that there is another approach from the one they are used to ("VFP doesn't have the IMPLEMENTS keyword? I suppose you can't design objects with consistent interfaces, and therefore I can't use VFP for project X"; "VFP has no STATIC keyword? I guess it's impossible to use functions to aggregate data, and so I can't use VFP as a tool in project Y."; "No structures? Guess you can't use some of those Windows API calls in VFP...") For the record, I have heard VFP'ers make the same mistakes ("there's no inheritance in VB? I guess you can't re-use code", and many, many others).

Don't get me wrong -- finding equivalent commands can be useful, but I think that even a small step backwards can lead to a more important question. So, instead of, "what's the equivalent of AddProperty in VB?" a better question might be "how do VB programmers store varying amounts of data in objects at run-time?" - the answer to the first question is "there is no equivalent command" but that doesn't mean that there's not a good and meaningful answer to the second question.

This is similar, if you think about it, to learning verbal languages. Is there an equivalent word in French to some specific english word? If so, great, you have a learned a new word, and can even start using it. But if you just line up an english sentence, and replace each word one by one from a french dictionary, you could easily be missing out on the real way to understand the language. And in fact, you'd get stuck on some words with no real euqivalent -- including "was" -- now, does that mean that in french, there's no way to speak in past tenses? Of course not.

See what I mean? I became much more productive in VB when I decided to step back a bit and change the way I was exploring the language, and stop asking "what's the VB word for XVFGYSC?". I really think that the more important and useful question would start with "how do I ...?".