ya it can be done.....just going take a while to do it. What I wanna know is once we have it finished here...then what? Like am I gonna get in trouble from MS for doing it or not? We're doing it here more as an experiment than anything...but heck if it works right then who knows we might want to sell it or make it open source....I just don't want a bunch of evil MS lawyers breathing down my neck. (eeek)

>Hi Dorin. Of course it can be done. If not ported then developed from scratch. Its just a MS business decision not to.
>
>>Hi
>>In all replies I can read the same, the need for strong typing, the need for ADO.NET, ...
>>I don't believe that VFP cannot be ported to NET platform as it is. I don't believe that the engine cannot be ported also (exists already Codebase NET). I've seen entire IDEs built on NET platform, or games. Why an interpreted xBase language cannot be built/ported? (I bet that runtimes will be very small)
>>So, IMO, it is possible but will never happen.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Bob. The point thats being missed is this: if VFP was by some magic able to create .Net assemblies then one wouldnt need to learn the framework class libraries - one would just need to know VFP commands and functions and the final app would be a .Net managed code app. The VFP commands and functions would worry about what framework class libraries are needed. (Keep in mind that its a theorectical discussion :) Hence it would be a reduced learning curve for a VFP developer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, its 11:50pm. Portugal beat England. And I'm off to bed :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Later.
>>>>
>>>>Had lunch today with a guy who's company uses Powerbuilder (to which many, like George T, would say "yuk!" *grin* ). They are beta-testing Powerbuilder.NET, the language construct has stayed pretty much the same.
>>>>
>>>>And he hasn't had to learn the framework classes, from what I gathered.
>>>
>>>Well thats something isn't it? Amazing really. Which is exactly what my answer to MikeH's question was really about.