>Sure, Ken is indeed doing a great (and probably very difficult) job, but I believe that MS (probably someone higher up than Ken) does not want to tell the truth about why there is no VFP.NET. I, for one, am not buying the "it is not technically possible", and "doing so would mean that vfp would loose all its great features".

If we wanted to do a VFP.NET, we could. I never said "we can't". But this is not the right thing to do, because it would not really benefit anyone including VFP developers. The language would look just like VB, but then not have the resources of VB and then not have all the features VB does. You have to realize that .NET has its own runtime and its own IDE shell, you don't just put VFP in .NET - everything new has to be written inside the .NET core components to fit in. When someone says "just put VFP in .NET", they not only do not understand the architecture of .NET but they are usually saying this with marketing reasons in their mind rather than focusing on what they really need technically.