>Thats the way it has been, whats your point?

My point is that VS 6 is about COM. .Net is not. VFP fits nicely in the VS 6 world. It does not fit into the .Net world as nicely. It will not share the IDE. The application and data models are different.

The exams for VB 6 and VFP 6 follow the same model. Now fast forward to VB 7 and VFP 7. VFP 6 and VFP 7 are 98% the same product. VB 6 and VB 7 are 2 % the same product.

My theory is that the .Net exams will be focused on building .Net applications -something VFP is NOT positioned to do. Yes, VFP can participate in .Net applications. The primary languages of .Net however, are VB and C++.

The current MCSD exams are about 2 things: building desktop apps and building distributed apps. In the 6.0 world, whether you are building desktop or distributed apps - and whether you are using VB or VFP 6 - it is about 90% the same.

If MS decides to change the MCSD track - to focus on building .Net apps - which in all liklihood - MS will do - the old MCDS track retires.

On one hand, you could make the argument that for folks who took the old MCSD track predicated on VFP, their certs should stay current. OTOH, you could argue that if you are going to do that for VFP developers, you should allow it for all developers. In essence, have an old MCSD cert that stays alive forever and a new track going forward. Then again, this smacks in the face of what MS has done in the past. Part of the encourgagement - or coercion - depending on how you want to look at it - is how MS gets you into the new stuff. If your cert is going to expire - you are going to upgrade - assuming of course that certification is important to you. Then again, for most people, certification is important to him/her.

Personally, given the disparity between VFP 7 and VS.Net, I don't see how VFP can fit into those certification exams - assuming that is what MS is going to do.

I have not seen this issue raised and discussed. Given the time and expense people have put into certification - particuarly the VFP camp - it is a discussion worth having. Or, maybe it is not...

That is my point...< s >...

< JVP >