Tom,
>
>To learn a new language requires nothing more than a warm body that is interested. How well or how much will be learned is another matter! :)
>

I believe that you've followed this thread enough to know that I (and Ed, and Mike, and Jim and John) all probably agree with this statement.

What's going on here, as I see it is, "I don't want to have to learn a new language" syndrome. Some folks, want either VFP to use the CLR or to be able to switch between run-times so that it can run under CLR or its own.

First, and I think it's important to note this, based on feedback from the VFP community, the decision was made to have VFP not participate in the CLR. I can understand why some (who feel otherwise about this issue) are posing the argument, but, in reality, it's pretty much a moot point.

I think it was John Petersen (or it may have been JimB) who basically said that take away the VFP data engine and what you end up with would be essentially VB.Net. I'd like to speculate that whoever made the statement might be wrong. The possibility exists that you'd end up with not VB.Net, but rather a bad VB.Net.

It was roughly 15 years ago when I went back to school to study computer science. Within a period of a year, I went from BASIC (which I already knew), to a mainframe Pascal (I'd been playing with a home computer version at home), to COBOL, to UCSD Pascal. I aced all four courses. Can you imagine, however, someone going to their professor and saying, "I don't want to have to learn a new language. I want to use < fill in the blank >"? This whole issue is about as silly as this premise.

Regards,