>Don't underestimate the time required to become productive in another language. Think of all the years you have spent with VFP.

About 5, and that was starting from scratch and not working full time until a couple of months ago. So, say I wanted to become productive in a new language like VB thats very similar, a year should be plenty of time. How long until VFP8 comes out? Longer than a year, I'm betting.

>Corel is required to work on a .NET port to Linux as a condition of the Microsoft bail-out.

Nope, Microsoft has the OPTION to make them do it. That's MS's bailout, IMO.

>A windows CE port seems very likely as well.

Like I said, Windows.

>Why build n-tier applications in VFP when you can do it with VB?

Because the VFP runtime is better at somethings than VBs. That won't be true when teh CLR is implemented.

>Why waste time giving VFP an OLEDB provider when VB already has it? Why did they give VFP the ability to use ADO when VB could do it? Why make VFP use COM if VB can?

Well, CLR in VFP is NOT a feature like using COM, its the language itself. There are arguements FOR using COM that far outwieghs the arguements AGAINST it. The other reason is its MS's strategy to get VFPers to move to VB.

>As I said at the start I have not dug my heels in on this issue, but because I even dare to mention possible options for VFP with CLR people come out swinging as if I am the defender of the CLR faith. I am not.

I'm open minded too, and during the GLGDW keynote, I was kindof thinking, "Hey, this is actually neat," but then realized how unpractical its advantages are.