>>>>It would be nice if VFP also got this option.
>>>
>>>Yeah, it might be nice to be able to compile to managed code. But for the amount of effort that it would take the VFP team to do this, only to arrive at a product that works almost exactly like another product that I already own (VB), I say why the hell bother?
>>
>>Why would Microsoft invent C#?
>
>C# is a fresh start. A chance to create a language from scratch the way that they feel a language should be built. Why not?

I didn't know the answer, that is why I asked. Let's think this through. Why does more than one language need to be ported to the CLR if when they are ported they are virtually the same? <--- A statement I am still considering whether I believe or not.

1) VB: Microsoft's largest developer community. Without this large group the CLR wouldn't take. That is the best reason I can think of.

2) VC++: Microsoft's 2nd largest developer group. Again, is this just to gain momentum? Won't C++ lose its processing speed and low level access to the OS by compiling to the CLR. Once again, I don't know.

3) C#: Why invent this language? If as you say, "why not?" Isn't this pointless and a huge expenditure of money? If CLR languages become very similar we already will have two almost identical ones (VB and VC++) so why a 3rd? VB and VC++ (if compiled to CLR) will have already tossed their baggage and be lean and mean... in the CLR sense.

Why did they bother with all of this effort? Wouldn't it have been simpler to choose only VC++ or VB to use the CLR... Or leave those two as they are and invent C# which will run on the CLR?