>> There are much more VB and VC (also Java) developers than
>> the VFP ones. VB.NET and C# are with common syntax to the
>> first group.

Yea, and I think the VB'ers are in a worse shape than the VC and Java clan due to their learning curve with OO. However, they are smart ... they'll get it ... eventually. The ones set to make alot of money at the start anyway are the trainers.

>> There is VFP Toolit for .NET written in VB.NET and in C#
Rick and Kamal are acquaintences of mine (from a previous employer) ... this Toolkit coupled with Kevin McNeish's .NET for VFP Developers is one of the best combo training sources (for the price anyway) available ... the Toolkit is free and .NET for VFP Developers is $49.95 US.

>> There is no VFP.NET. Though MS announces that VFP7 IS PART
>> of VS.NET, VFP7 is separate ... tool (blah, I said it) and
>> VFP7 is NOT CLR BASED.
This, in actuality, is a very fortunate thing as it allows the VFP team some autonomy in their development cycle.

>> VFP8 Beta is out there, but is not so much promoted as the VS.NET
You have a talent for understatement :-) ... you are right ... all previous platforms are now in legacy mode due to the direction M$ has taken with .NET.

>> However MS policy (according to me) is driving at .NET domination
>> over all other development platforms (including VFP).
True, true and not necessarily such a bad thing. The concept behind .NET is really wonderful. I just wonder what's gonna happen to the consultancy businesses now that the well of highly skilled developers are now all going to know the same two languges and begin competing with one another based on .NET skillset vice platform independent skill sets (like VFP, VB, C++). It is a purer economic model ... competition will be rough ... there are many very skilled development shops out there that VFP'ers have never had to contend with that now must be factored into their marketing plans.

>> For VFP developers there is .NET Toolkit to help them get
>> accustomed with the .NET platform, however if we wish to migrate
>> to .NET we should learn VB.NET or C# (or some other .NET language)
>> but I will suggest VB.NET is good choise, because its syntax is
>> much common to VFP, than the syntax of other .NET languages.
>> On the other hand, there are relatively much more samples for
>> C# than for VB.NET, so knowing C# will be a plus.

I used to think VB.NET would be my choice, now I believe it is going to be C# due to one argument I heard at DevCon ... C# is very Java like ... if I'm going to go through a learning curve I might as well get the most mileage out of it as possible. If learning C# gets me closer to Java then that'll be my choice.

>> To keep VFP alive, we should keep developing on it, and to make
>> good interoperability and alternative services of the .NET ones.
Bingo ... for nothing runs faster than the Fox. Which makes me think of something I've never considered before now and just might mean Fox has more life in it that I give it credit for. VB is now "replaced" by VB.NET as far as M$ marketing is concerned ... nothing replaces VFP's data handling capabilities ... nothing ... VFP might still have some legs left afterall.

>> Personally I am studing ASP.NET WebForms with the idea to make VFP
>> builders with which to be possible to convert an existing VFP form to
>> WebForm, but keeping the business logic and data access in VFP classes.

That's where I'm starting out too ... ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Webforms, SQL Server 2000, and learning the sytax of C# as needed.

Good luck to you and your .NET endeavors. Nice chatting.

CTBlankenship