Hi Jess,

>I would rather happy to see VFPToolkit to be more C#.Net compatible than in >VB.Net.
The VFP Toolkit for .NET is equally compatible in both C# as well as VB .NET. The source code is also available in both C# and VB .NET.

Kamal

>Hello Ken!
>
>I will try to answer for Mike to the best I could because he is a co-employee of mine. It's really a hard decision on our part in deciding to go for C#.
>
>Reasons:
>1. C# would be becoming ECMA Standard.
>2. C# is being touted as the language of the .Net platform.
>3. MS is planning to rely on C# for future development.
>4. MS strong support on C# is undoubted primarily because it is the language that could compete with Java.
>5. C# is Java-like language and so migrating to Java if necessary is no longer an issue for us.
>6. Majority of our programmers will begin from scratch in learning another language and so might as well go for one which has higher profile than VB.
>
>On the aside, I would like to tell you frankly that we are frustrated with the lukewarm overall support of MS for VFP which later cemented by your statement that I read in one of the threads several days ago. Your statement seems to me that VFP developers are at MS Mercy for overall significant support including marketing. We bet on MS-VFP but MS is not willing to Bet on us. It's money first before marketing attitude.
>
>>VB.NET will continue to gain more and more VFP like features while C# probably won't.
>
>This is a mistake because I feel and surveys show that 75% of VFPers will go for C# than VB. In fact significant number of VBers will embrace C#.Net rather than VB.Net. I don't have reliable data but as a programmer who knows a lot of programmers, I have no doubt that C# is gaining more and more significant no. of followers than VB.Net. And so my suggestion is that MS should exert effort on how to help VFPers to easily migrate to C#.Net rather than VB.Net. I would rather happy to see VFPToolkit to be more C#.Net compatible than in VB.Net.