Hi Walter

PMFJI, but do you honestly think this will happen for VFP after everything thats been said and written? I dont think its a technical consideration at all. I think the main argument against making VFP part of .Net is that there no cost justification to spend the money to do this for the relatively small universe of VFP developers vs. the number of developers of other development languages like VB and C.




>Hi Dorin,
>
>Well, two years ago, they talked about .NET that every .NET language would have the same technical characteristics, because all functionality was going to be provided through the CLR. However AFAIK Microsoft has changed its position on this in allowing each .NET language to distinct itself more from the other .NET language. So in that respect it might be true that in this light there is more room for making VFP part of .NET (from a technical POV).
>
>Walter,
>
>
>>I think about a "Hypothetical" VFP_.NET , ported to this platform, but still capable to do what it currently does (to interpret/run Xbase code).
>>I've readed in a lot of places that .NET managed code can run even faster and more efficient than native code (with benchmarks proving this). But I don't believe in something like that (ported VFP to .NET).