>I pass your test of competence, but I'm not qualified to agree or disagree without assessing his project. Nor are you.

I see humility is still your strong suit :). I've kept my mouth shut long enough on this topic. I find it hilarious to see all of the regular anti-.net crew come out of the woodwork to celebrate this guys results.

We can agree or disagree as we see fit; his project has nothing to do with the topic du jour. Trying to evaluate the capability of a language and development platform as complex as .Net/c# in 3 months is ridiculous. You need a minimum of a year of full time concentration on .net to become proficient with the framework.

You can twist the argument however you choose, the facts are still the facts. With today's development platforms, noone can be proficient in any of them in 3 months, unless you choose a kid's language like VB :).




>
>FWIW, the work I'm doing at the moment would be almost impossible in dotNET. It took less than 3 months to reach that conclusion. ;-) Meanwhile Gary Wynne has a dotNET project that would be ridiculous in VFP. So what. that's not proof, it's just anecdote.
>
>But let's make a distinction between the learning curve of a technology, and the capabilities of the technology itself.
>
>A Ferrari is very capable, but few of us drive one- because we can't justify the cost. Only a fanatic or a millionaire can afford to ignore cost. A learning curve is a cost. The OP decided he didn't want to pay it in 2006. There is nothing inconsistent or unreasonable about that.