>>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.

I personally do not wish to have the whole thing rewritten only to have it integrated with the CLR. OTOH, i see too those IT guys praising/putting money on .NET just because the sound of it.
My conclusion? What's the big deal? Just name the next VFP version VFP.NET and that's it. Is there a rule somewhere that states that everything with the .NET suffix should be included in the Visual Studio suite??

Just my 0.2 shekels :-)

Jaime