>>I could never understand why years ago - some did make that move. It was plain as day that Java was not ready...

Really? Well, I felt in good company along with Oracle and others. Most of the problems didn't become apparent until one tried to create "real live" work rather than the usual trivial examples in the books. I'm impressed that with little or no such experience, you still knew that Java was not ready.

>>VB had an established track record.

Like dotNET, you mean? You were already advocating dotNET at the pre-release stage, were you not? And dotNET had some infuriating bugs when it first came out, such as the awful debug line-mismatch problem. That was too early as well. Didn't stop you promoting it.

Besides, my point was that VB had such deficieicies that it got replaced. I'm assuming you must have seen those deficiencies same as you saw the Java ones? Did you record them anywhere I can review?

>>And - those that learned VB to one degree or another, had an easier time negotiating the numerous VB-Only samples and translating them to VFP.

And those who learned Java find most C# examples extremely obvious.

But did you really find VB samples so difficult before you learned VB? I'm curious- how long did it take you to learn VB? Honestly, this sounds like trying to read German without learning the language, rather than VB which is really fairly easy to follow.

>>And of course, those that learned VB had and have an easier time learning .NET.

What, easier than the 3-day "learn dotNET for VFP developers" courses offered commercially around here?

>>It is an interesting analogy you are trying desparately to create - but that dog simply will not hunt.

Dogs, analogies, desperation... I assume this is a new topic? Sounds intriguing, I'll bet you're the hero whatever it is.