>I'm sorry, but this does not make any sense. If you look at the two statements above in comparison, what you are really saying is:
>
>1 - VFP cannot be made a .NET because certain parts that are in VFP are not in the .NET framework/shell/whatever
>
>2 - You (MS) want to add those parts to the framework.
>
>Now, this means that it is, of course, entirely possible to build a VFP.NET with all the features that make VFP such a strong product, you have just chosen not to.

I never said it was impossible. I simply stated what Microosoft plans are. There is no benefit to developers to have yet another .NET language to choose from if the same features will basically exist in VB.NET and C#. Creating a VFP.NET language would take away resources from adding VFP like features to the .NET languages.