Craig says it's a tangle of code and since he's been quite close to the VFP Team I guess he got that from them. But I must say that I've had to work with a couple of really tangled systems in the past and the major problem was learning those systems so that I could reliably (safely) revise them. Once they were learned working in the tangle really wasn't much harder than working with nice clean code.

Speed-wise I really can't see it making much of a difference at all given today's processors. Even an iota might be too hopeful.
On the other hand, as you discovered Evan (with reindex a coupla SPs ago), there are things that can make a huge difference in speed.
This is an issue that I really don't see a rationale for the user community to press for. For all we know the thing is presently engineered to have legacy stuff run more slowly than current stuff anyway. Having a smaller .EXE is not a high priority on my list.

Getting MS to make a clear statement TO THE WORLD that VFP is out of .NET for (whatever) specific reasons, hopefully including that it is an excellent platform for small-medium business that have less need for all that .NET has to offer is my number 1 hot button issue.
Getting MS to follow that up with industry-wide marketing (not necessarily lots and expensive and for a long time, but certainly more than an ad or two in FPA) is my next priority issue.

Then it's (still) my list of 4 technical/product improvements that haven't changed in the last 3 years.

Cheers,

JimN

>Cool idea. Be able to check a button when compiling that says "no legacy runtime" or better yet "leave out the old crap".
>
>>I've been thinking that it would be cool to be able to have runtimes that do not include anything where the help file says "Included for backward compatibility. Use xxx instead". Wonder if that would speed things up?
>>
>>>>As for a rewrite, I'm amazed that VFP is what it is today based on the tangle of code it's written with. I have full confidence that the Fox team can add the features that are and will be needed.
>>>
>>>That makes two of us.