SNIP
>(snip)
>
>Jim, I would not go so far as to call VFP.NET dishonest. Maybe a bit sleazy, but sheesh, MS can define the precise meaning of this silly term any way they like. It's entirely up to Microsoft and its marketing wizardry how they present exactly what is the relationship of VFP to .NET, right up front. Why assume they must state the case dishonestly?
>
>Now consider that absurd .NET ad of Microsoft's with the bicyle maker and his putative parts supplier, "One degree of separation". I ask you, in all honesty, which offends your sense of truth and integrity more deeply, that ad, or the name VFP.NET?
>
>I do see your point about the poll, though. There may be some argument about the poll's exact meaning, but the gist of it is very clear. It was surprising how strong a showing VFP.NET had over VFP for .NET, which even I wimped out and voted for. Either way, the association would be beneficial. For that matter, I wasn't kidding in my reply to John Harvey, either. VFP Against .NET, VFP .NOT. .NET, John's VFP.NET.NOT, anything that gives us a relationship to .NET, is better that the absolute nothing we've got now.

No one has been able (willing might be the better word) to tell me how Office.NET is honest in its naming. If it turns out that it uses a .NET variation of VBA then I guess the VFP Team could give VFP a "Hello world" presence in CLR and be roughly equal. After all, if storing a document in XML format is another trait of Office.NET then VFP can do the same with tables.

Yes, the message is clear - many people feel, and I am one of them, that some association with .NET would be valuable. It represents not only a free ride on all the hype, but also infers that it remains a 'player' for the future.

cheers Mike, and Happy New Year.

>
>Mike