Perry,

>>I read several messages from folks showing how you can develope in .net for FREE. Yet you chose to shoot down their messages.

Sigh. It was stated that dotNET development can be free because a compiler is available with the framework. I observed that a text editor and command line interface isn't a realistic proposition in 2004. It was stated that MSDE is free. I observed that the church/small business market identified by the OP may not agree. It was stated that freeware dotNET IDEs are available. I pointed out that TANSTAAFL- specifically the peril of tying oneself to 3rd party tools unless one can be sure about longevity. Where is the "slam"? With which part do you disagree?

>>I have used the icsharp interface and it was extrememely useful. Just because you had bad experiences before with one product, doesn't mean you should slam future attempts.

That is exactly what I said myself. Thanks for the "correction".

>>There are many alternatives in the .net environment. MS makes their money from Windows sales. The more peope they get to develop for Windows, the better for them. So they have made it as easy as possible to develop in .net.

Do you really think anybody here is unaware of that?

>>Georgaras sounds like many of the 2.6 Fox developers when VFP first came out. They stayed with FPD and FPW, and still do today. You can still see them making posts about having difficulty getting FPD to work with newer printers or with features in Win XP.

Talk about "slamming" and mischaracterization.

>>If someone wants to maintain being a corporate developer, they have no choice but to go with the flow. This requires learning whatever tools are being used in the basic corporate environment today. VFP is not in the mix. Unless it's to convert an existing VFP app to Java or .Net.

Assuming that you are 100% correct: being a corporate developer is not a life goal for everybody here. IOW not everybody is the same as you. Which means people who disagree with you are not necessarily doing something wrong.