Hi,

Most of the arguments here have been to maintain the status quo. A good language is just a good language if there are not enough people using it would die a natural death.

What I am trying to say here is that VFP has to keep up with the times and at the moment the next big thing coming out of MS is the .NET. On the programming front of .NET you get the CLR technology and for VFP to be the only one left out is indeed sad. IMHO, all the discussions that VFP would lost most of the language advantage if it were to support CLR is just an excuse for not implementing CLR for VFP. Sure we lose some functionality but not the whole lot.

Regards,
Kueh.

>>I agree that it would be very difficult to provide this level of support for the CLR. Would it be any more difficult than writing an X86 compiler? Perhaps that's an unfair question since VFP relies on a runtime.
>
>Oh, am I going to regret this.
>
>The question shouldn't be how difficult is it to make VFP work with the CLR. The question should be what are the reasons for making VFP work with the CLR? Continuing the existence of VFP is not really a valid response to this question. Are there others? I'm not saying there are none I just haven't seen any stated thus far.
>
>If there are no reasons then the removal from VS becomes more logical. My name is on that wiki as being against removal because I think it will be the death nell of VFP but I've always accepted that the day would come when Fox would no longer be viable.
>
>If you have a reason for making VFP work with the CLR how about starting a separate thread so the discussion can focus on that issue.