>>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).
>
>Doug

Well, if MS had a product offering and marketing campaign going for Linux, it would make plenty of sense to hitch a ride on that train. But MS has a one-track mind about marketing, called .NET. Time and again we've heard that VFP can integrate well with the .NET environment. I'm sure you could write a good article about it, if you haven't already. Short of being built on the CLR, VFP goes about as far as one could ask. Surely, we at least pass the "one degree of separation" test, which is about all that most of the world "understands" about what the hell .NET means.

You seem to be asking for a technical justification, but that is not what this is about. From a marketing standpoint, the reason for naming it "VFP for .NET" is very clear.

Mike