>>I second your amendment. Calling it VFP for .NET would be a big step in the right direction, and it addresses the concerns of the purists who insist that "VFP is not .NET". Personally, I think that is going overboard: a word invented by Microsoft's marketing department can mean whatever they like. There's no need to quibble over semantics. VFP is at least in some significant way a player in the .NET arena, is it not? Be up-front about exactly how this is true, and no one should feel they've been deceived by some shallow marketing ploy. The only thing that MS is marketing is .NET, so let's not be suicidal: VFP needs and deserves a piece of that marketing.
>>
>
>My biggest problem with calling it VFP for .Net is that there's an implication that there's a VFP not for .Net, and I'd be hard put to show where the line between the two is drawn.

OK Ed, I see your point, but this sounds like a much weaker line of resistance than your position about VFP.NET. In a perfect world, there would be no need for compromises. On balance, I think the benefits of the weaker association to .NET in "VFP for .NET" far outweigh this objection, and judging from the poll results so far, there seems to be a pretty strong sentiment that one of the proposed .NET names would be better than no change at all. An honest, up-front explanation about VFP's relationship to .NET would eliminate any confusion about VFP's having both a .NET and a .NOT side. Are you adamantly opposed to the idea?

Mike