>I don't know, but maybe you skip every second word when you read, or something???
>
>I *also* said, in the same response, that I was comfortable even if VFP died tomorrow.

What I was addressing was that there was a tone of panic in your post at the consideration that Microsoft might kill Visual FoxPro, and while that tone may have come from not wanting to sit through a thread like that again (I wouldn't blame you, incidentally), I wanted it to be clear that the loss of VFP would not jeopardize my career and that I hoped that everyone else here was secure enough in their skills to be able to say the same thing.

>And I didn't think I was knocking IBM. Yes, I used them as a prime example of unproductively PUSHING things aimed at changing the world (like PL/1, MSS units, IMS. etc in addition to OS/2) but which met resistance despite their best efforts. I feel that MS' direction for a "unified programming environment" is the same thing. We, the users and customers, don't really want that. It suits MS' purposes, but not ours.

I don't know - I rather like OS/2 and PL/I. PL/I was my first exposure to data structures and pointers, which made the introduction to C much easier. And PL/I in the mainframe environment was being positioned as an alternative to ... COBOL??? I don't know about you, but given that choice,, I'd easily take PL/I.

For me, the jury is still out on the "unified programming environment" until I see it - I suspect that Visual Studio is just a bundling, not the full implementation.