>>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?

Besides Fox??? Does it matter? As long as Fox is barred, who cares? Unless of course, you think there is safety in numbers.

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

That is one case you bring up. I could also say that being two months old makes it far too early to discount the language. The knife cuts both ways on that point.


>
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.
>

One rational interpretion of this is that you advocate VFP developers move to C#. I know you are not saying that. Still, you didn't qualify it. You listed VFP, VB, and c#, and of the three, you picked C#.

Pick the one you want. Just don't go around casting stones on a langauge because it is not one you picked.

As for your logic, the reasoning is hard to follow.


>>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?


I said it was not my primary argument, but it is one of many factors to consider. You have to be able to get your foot in the door Mike. As a product vendor, you are not as sensitive to this as a consultant, whose language skills need to be properly matched up with what the client requires.