Hi Carl,

What's your opinion about MM.NET? Why did you pick it?

>Sergey, I mainly use MM.NET, but I am working on a CSLA project for a customer since that is what they are comfortable with and they have a considerable amount of "legacy" code developed with CSLA.
>
>The out-of-box experience with frameworks can be frustrating for those new to .NET. Why? For one thing it's tempting to look at frameworks as a learning-curve and productivity short-cut for moving to the world of .NET development. Indeed, the learning curve is steep for .NET. But I would also argue that there's a steep learning curve in most development environments. Even VFP can be daunting to someone just starting out learning to use it today. Silly me for thinking I could short-cut learning .NET :) I admit that was my motivation at first. Oh, well. I still had to learn .NET. And that took some time.
>
>So, now that I'm at least at a basecamp on the lower reaches of the .NET Mt. Everest learning curve, I find that I can make better use of MM.NET or CSLA - now that I understand .NET better. Making the change from MM.NET (for this one project, MM.NET is still my work horse) to CSLA actually has been fairly painless. I think the reason for that is, I understand .NET much better now than when I first started out. Not to mention that both of these frameworks are well thought out.
>
>These comments probably aren't what you were asking for, but it's interesting how often this topic comes up. I keep hoping things will get simpler in software development, but then I guess we would have to find something else to do. I've been intrigued by books like "Beyond Java", all the hoopla around dynamic languages and the like, I guess because while there may be no silver bullet, I can at least dream of one. :)
>
>OK, back to CSLA... Mark Dunn (http://www.dunntraining.com/) has a training class in CSLA. I heard good things from attendees of the "beta" class.
>