>>F# looks like a research language and, while the current result is disappointing, it is encouraging that MS is considering approaches other than creating 100% OOP languages. Maybe they can create a language that, like VFP, is OO yet has some commands and functions. That would be nice.
>
>Not that I know any better, but why would a language with commands be preferable to a complete OO language? I prefer the the C# language and .NET Object Model to VFP's syntax and object model. I see no disadvatnages to an all OOP tool.
>
>On the other hand, I see disadvantages to VFP being just shy of full oop. For example cursors. You can't natively pass a cursor from one method to another, or one datasession to another which makes it difficult to create clean, elegant object systems in VFP.
>
>(IOW, I like VFP's cursors, but not as much as I'd like OOP cursors!)

Mike,

Don't want to start an argument, but there are two things I like about non-OOP commands as they exist in VFP.

1) Non-OOP commands are hard to change by the language developers, so they provide continuity between versions. Naturally, when poor choices are made...

2) I don't like having to reach deep into an object, or namespace, hierachy for basic functionality that should be directly available, such as ABS(), SIN(), UPPER(), SUBSTR(), etc. Note: I only spent a couple of months with .NET, so I'm talking generally, not about .NET.

3) In a way, both points above argue for learnability; the possibility of becoming an expert at a language. I think you can be more productive if you become an expert at a pretty good language than if you always keep jumping from one language to another. Naturally, you must not keep totally static: take a few *big* steps, not many little ones.

4) I couldn't agree more with you that if VFP cursors and datasessions could be passed as objects, well... that would be great. I'm not a purist, I want my cake and eat it.

Alex