Thanks Craig.

>>Hi Craig,
>>
>>I did read about MS's strategy to pull VFP out of the .NET framework. You mentioned that a majority of people did not want it to be in the .NET framework in DevCon. I would be interested to know the some of the reasons given for keeping VFP out, if for nothing, just to argue the case that MS has interest in keeping VFP alive beyond .NET.
>
>The arguements were more along the lines of, should VFP participate in the CLR? To be in the CLR, VFP would have to give up native data handling and macro expansion...both things people said are absolutely needed in VFP. Since VS.Net is based on the .Net strategy and CLR...and because VFP was much closer to being ready to ship than the other languages (MS says it will be end of this year), the decision to pull VFP from VS was pretty simple.
>
>
>>
>>It does seem till now, that in most MS releases, KB articles etc, they always refer to '...any development language which can create COM objects like VC++, VB ...' and leave VFP out. And that's what doubting thomases are always touting.
>>
>>
>
>
>That's a problem with the product and support teams. Both write the KBs. With so many people writing KBs, it's difficult to police this.