>>So doesn't this also make the argument for a VFP.NET?
>
>
>Hi Jim..
>
>I don't see how it does. If you are left with VB .Net and VB .Net already exists, why would it make sense to develop a redundant language? Also, it would appear that many VFP developers will give serious consideration to C#.

Then why is there a C# and a VB.Net? Can't the same reasoning be applied to having a VFP.NET? Seems to me it can. Just as they are different from each other, having different adherents to each, so it is the case with VFP.

>
>VFP should stay right where it is. It is an investment that should continue to be leveraged and used in conjunction with VS .Net.

Of course it should, and continue to grow in its traditional ways too. But I don't see how that precludes a VFP.NET.