>>Hey, MS had labeled VB6 as an OOP language, right? There's more .net in VFP than there was OOP in VB6, IMHO.
>
>VFP only supports part of the OOP specification. It's a leg up from VB 6.0, but it's a far cry from a pure OOP language as well. VFP is not .NET--no matter what you call it. We all had our chance to have it included in the architecture, but bygones will be bygones.

For spectators with cheaper tickets: we're not discussing architecture here. The rename only, without changing architecture, and is it justifiable or not.

Yes, you can't overload operators in VFP, and there's a few other things a true OOP language should have, but VFP is still very OOP in most of the meanings of the word. OTOH, VB6 didn't have inheritance... and therefore its heritage is mostly not inherited by vb.net. Or could we use that as a proof?