>> 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? <<

I am the one who called it dishonest. There is in fact a definition of .NET in the standard, which is technically controlled by a standards body, not by Microsoft. Prominent in the definition is the requirement to generate code which can be executed by the Common Language Runtim (CLR). VFP does not do that and is therefore not a .NET language. There is no gray area here.

Mike