>Choosing a langauge that is more likely than not to be on an approved list is not a wise move IMO. This is but one of many reasons.

What are the others?

>I would also say that while you can point to specific cases, one cannot and should not create a per se rule against VB.

Considering the language is 2 months old, I'd say its not a good start.

>I see this as the trend for two reasons, one, its very similar to Java and C++, and two, it truly is a standard, noproprietary language.
>Using that logic, folks should have never chosen langauges like VFP or VB.

Hardly. Take a look at the alternatives to VFP and VB on the Microsoft platform. None. You got C++ below them, Access above them, and nothing on the middle. Now we move to VFP, VB.NET, and C# in the middle. For the reasons I've already mentioned, C# makes more sense to standardize on. My logic hold water.

>Again, VFP has to be able to get through the front door first.. And, if the requirement is to base apps on the CLR, VFP cannot do that either.

So now we're backing to the approved languages argument... which was not your argument?