That's what my point was. VFP should find a niche where it's better at some things than .Net is just like it's better at a lot of things than VB is. This was all in response to a comment that said VFP will continue to be a good tool for desktop development while .Net will take over for web development. I don't agree with that, since like you said, .NET will be able to compete with VFP at every level and VFP, IMHO, will probably be able to do a lot of things as good as or better with web apps...

>>IMHO, web apps are the way to go, but, that doesn't rule out VFP. Just like web services: why should anyone use VFP web services when there will be a whole new product, .NET, primarily devoted to that.
>
>The same question goes for Web applications. Or for desktop applications...
>
>Creating Web Services in VFP is no more difficult than it is in .Net. In fact in many way it's way more flexible because you can decide which services to bind to at runtime which you can't do in .Net - well at least not without lots of low level parsing code.
>
>I'm not sure what your point is...
>
>.Net is like an update to the Windows API more than anything. You can build *any* kind of app with it from Fat client to Web Service to HTML only app. Which is pretty much the same range of apps you can write with VFP. The choice of environment depends on your development preference and possibly scalability issues (which IMHO are much less of an issue because 95% of apps created will never even come close to requiring any though to scalibilty on reasonably current hardware).
>
>+++ Rick ---