>>Ken Levy and the VFP team are doing a great job as far as upgrading the product, but as I have said, marketing it outside the VFP fold is an issue to me I am not satisfied. Another thing that I want to see is that to make VFP a true .NET language while backward compatible with its previous version but with long debates here it UT and as Ken emphasized time and again, it will not happen because of lack of resources. It is not strategic as far as MS tools are concerned.
>
>Jess, that is incorrect, I have never stated resources is an issue where VFP and .NET are concerned. VFP has its own runtime and its own IDE. To understand this issue more clearly, read my article at http://www.advisor.com/Articles.nsf/aid/LEVYK02. Microsoft has not announced any formal position on this issue one way or the other, this simply states the current pros and cons and issues involved. Combine VS .NET with the VFP Toolkit for .NET (see http://gotdotnet.com/team/vfp), then send me a list of things you would like to see in VS .NET in the future that are more VFP like and I will be sure to forward it to the VS .NET team who are busy designing the next versions of VS .NET.

Yes. I've seen your article long ago. My apology Ken but the person who stated re: lack of resources, belongs to the roster of MVPs. As far as VFP is concerned relative to VS.Net, I want to see it compile with CLR but with the option to create unmanage code just like C++. But somebody said (an MVP) I forgot his name, "it will not happen given VFP's lack of resources."