>>Do you seriously think the existence of "VFP for .NET" will in the slightest way tarnish .NET? Doesn't VFP have plenty to say about the ways it can work in harmony with .NET? Does the mere mention of .NET in such close association VFP make you gag?
>
>Why don't we name it "VFP for Linux" or "VFP for Palm"? Those names are about as relevant as naming it "VFP for .NET" since in fact VFP is not part of .NET (the fact that it can work with .NET does not mean that it's part of .NET).

But when did "for" get the definition "part of"?

VFP cannot do anything running under Linux.
VFP cannot do anything running under Palm OS.
VFP *can* do lots of stuff running under Windows with .NET and this stuff *is* tightly related to .NET itself.

As I understand it, there is no .NET operating system.

I'd be interested how OFFICE.NET is rationalized as a .NET member.



>
>Doug