>> Not to mention... developers developed VFP... but Jess seems to have no problem using it. So, why not use other tools, even thought they are developed in VFP.
>
>I was actually going to take it that far myself, but decided I'd already made my point. Jess would probably say that MS is much less likely to go away than F1 or ProMatrix for example. I'm sure the same argument was made in discussing dBase add-ons in reference to Ashton Tate.
>
>> As Matt said, we look at it this way... look at all the time we get for $300 by buying StoneField... we could never produce it for that. Even if we still spend a month customizing it, we are WAY ahead!
>
>Actually, I think Jess is on record as being in favor of tools like Stonfield, xCase, etc.,

Yes, we do use some 3rd party tools/utilities. With or without framework any developer can now compete in the development arena with the release of VFP 6.0 although its framework is monolithic still, but for sure it will improve on the coming versions. In fact, without much of a curiosity, any apps developed from scratch, with its well applied OOP methodology plus enhancements, that application can be a based to becoming a framework, it can be a monolithic one or a professional one.

>just not frameworks.

I've already made clear my point. If I am not in favor of framework, why we developed our own. It so happened that we don't use commercial frameworks.