>I am not talking about losing anything.

Except for time and resources. What a waste, why would we even consider wanting this? None of our existing code would be able to run as a CLR app, so you have to start over.

If you're gonna have to start over to get CLR, we can do that in Visual Studio already. Its called VB or C#.

Why do you want VFP syntax to run CLR code? So you don't have to learn another syntax to write completely different applications? Give me a break.

And that thing about an 8 mb runtime install is not even worth pursing. We have 40 gb hard drives and gb ethernet, do you really think avioding a one time .008 gb file is that important that you want to sacrifice the speed, stability, and flexibility of your apps?

Again, do you really think that MS wants to port their apps to a non-MS platform? HA! They are a Windows company. Yes, the CLR can be ported, and thats where MS was smart. They decided to bet on CLR to revive their image on sales. If Windows still looses market share, MS will have an immediate escape plan for their apps by porting CLR, but that is not what they invision.

The idea of teh CLR is neat: you can write compatible components that use the same runtime in the syntax "skin" of your choice.

In all practical purposes, using mutiple languages is a maintence nightmare. And confusing. Someone who is more comfortable with VB will write a VB.NET object and someone using C# will subclass it and use it. Its neat, but not very practical.

Finally, MS has been pushing VFP as middle tier. So most apps that fit the MS "vision" would have a front end of VB or C# (or some ML) and deploying VFP to the client tpyically won't be a concern to them so the CLR advantage you named would be lost. On top of that, if VFP WERE to be deployed as CLR MS would have no reason at all to promote it as a middle tier app since it now has no performace and functionality gain that VB or C# can't do.

The concusion is that VFP can't be all CLR, if it were, it would fall behind and die much faster. And it shouldn't be half either. I wouldn't waste time on developement of a compile option to see something I can already get within the studio. You're going to have to start over anyways, why do you want to hold on to VFP syntax so much?