>>>> 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
>
>OK, Mike, you undoubtedly know more about it than I do. I still haven't seen any references that make this absolutely clear, and no one has answered Jim Nelson's question as to how Office qualifies, but I'll concede the point.
>
>That brings us back to VFP for .NET. If VFP.NET is out of the question, it's a pretty safe bet that vast majority of those who selected VFP.NET as their first choice would opt for "VFP for .NET" over no change at all. The poll, imperfect as it was, gave us a good indication that most people want to see a change that brings VFP into an explicit, positive relationship to .NET.


We can only speculate how many people would have chosen to leave the name unchanged, since that was not one of the choices in the survey.

Mike

>
>Mike