>* We are a long-time Visual Foxpro (back to FoxBase, some of us earlier) and wanted a framework that >would continue that tradition. Kevin McNeish has experience of Visual FoxPro frameworks, we felt >confident that he would understand our needs for a real application.

The StrataFrame developers are former VFP developers, the whole team. They are application developers, and use their own tool for their products.


>* Strataframe talked about "Theming", MM.NET talked about "Design Patterns" - so I went for good >skeleton over good skin <g> (That's a gross oversimplification of course).

SF, having a good skin on a strong architecture body, seems to me a much better approach.


>* MM.NET stores all code required to produce projects in the source code, Strataframe has project >metadata in a SQL database. I found that scary, SQL databases can be a change-control nightmare. First >thing I'd have had to do is find a way to manage the SQL stuff in Subversion...

Not sure what a source control tool has to do with it, I guess SQL Server has proven features regarding security and data loss.


>Just one observation - the page on the Strataframe website titled "Why Strataframe?" doesn't answer that >question, it answers the question "Why use a framework?"

The website doesn't seem to me to be trying to compare StrataFrame with other tools when asking "Why StrataFrame", but rather showing the advantages of using StrataFrame versus a typical .NET Application.


>To a certain extent, I've made a choice and am now stuck with it .. if I was to choose again, I might well go with an alternative: be that Strataframe or DevExpress' XAF (a newcomer).

OK, now I'm drawing a blank. :)


>Also, price wise, MM.NET seems more basic, but covers more areas for the $700, Strataframe has more if you buy the add-ons.

Definitely.


Abraços.