John,

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but this topic has already been done to death ...

~~Bonnie



>Over the past week or so I've been going over an article on the Microsoft Visual Studio.NET set entitled "Microsoft Developer Tools Roadmap 2002–2004". The article can be found at the followinf URL:
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/roadmap.asp
>
>First off, let me say that it isn't my intent to start a nasty flame fest, but to pose the question whether updating VFP to a .NET language within the next year to 18 months might be a good idea and to promote a discussion of the pros and cons of doing this. What really grabbed me about this article, was the mention of SQL Server "Yukon". With this release of SQL Server, it will become a host for the .NET CLR and that developers in the four Microsoft .NET languages (C#, J#, VB.NET and C++.NET) will be able to write SQL Server stored procedures as native code rather than T-SQL. The ability to write native VFP code to access SQL Server sounds very appealing to me--in fact it sounds like a natural, particularly in those situations where a true database server is a requirement. How this will exactly work is unclear as Yukon is still a long way from release. The article doesn't mention whether MSDE will also become a CLR host, but it's probably a good assumption that it will.
>
>I think there are some other advantages as well:
>
>1. It will bring more VFP developers into the client-server arena and, long-term, increase the number of SQL Server DBAs.
>
>2. Make it easier to move away from the .DBF format and its dependence on file system or programmer driven security, potentially high network bandwidth usage and potentially high handle counts (this last mentioned issue can become a resource issue in multi-user Terminal Services applications).
>
>3. The power and control of VFP make it analagous to C++ as a database access language. Over time it could become the tool of choice for working with SQL Server and in terms of database access it would be the "sharpest of the sharps".
>
>4. We might see books from publishers other than Hentzenwerke. :)
>
>I hope I've provided some ideas for thought and discussion.
>
>Best wishes and great year for all.
>
>John