>>>Excuse me? Show me one post I ever said that .Net and "real languages" are better than VFP.
>
>Think about the term "real language" for a second or two. Voila.
>
>>>I seem to remember that most discussion re .Net on this forum that say that VFP is better than .Net becuase it has a local data engine.
>
>What I see is people coming to a VFP forum to claim that our heads are in the sand we aren't as good businessmen as dotNET authors etc etc... and that the local data engine is of little import, because "real programmers" can use ADO.NET or SP.
>
>I guess that as long as MSFT understands why a local data engine (particularly automatic spanning to disk) is of value, all we have to do is wait and dotNET will soon provide the technical benefits we want. Until then, I guess we can put up with being told with sound and fury that it already does.

Again, you show your complete ignorance of the facts. I make my living with VFP. I never said .net is better. I just said that it is the future of Microsofts programming push. It will and has gotten more marketing in 2 days than VFP has had in the last year. VFP is not on MS's list of priorities and never will be. It was bought for the Rushmore technology which MS needed for its other higher value lines.

But I'm sure you'll figure out a way to twist these words to suit your insatiable desire to be an ... I'll let you fill in the blanks, because I'll get banned if I fill them in.