>>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.

All very true.....however it would be also be *nice* to look at a potential client and mention "foxpro" with seeing everyone recoil in their seats. From a technological standpoint - sure it may not offer any true benfit to the developer - but from a marketing point of view it would be priceless. I'm sure at Micro$oft there is some bean counter that sits in a room and calculates if this type of thing would be profitble - assuming all of M$'s efforts aren't being wasted paying their army of lawyers to sue 17 year old college kids for selling his own unopend copy of XP on ebay.....
Anyway you get the point - a VFP.NET would be done for marketing an appearnce more than anything....and you being the top marketing guy......hehe