Hi Kevin,

The quote you used hadn't shown (I assume because of the %lt sign immediately following the %gt (quote-mark) sign. Hopefully I fixed that.

>>KevinM may have his .NET framework right around the corner. But using the original VFP frameworks as a guideline, and remembering that those frameworks had but .1% of the classes to contend with along with a very restrictive (sub)set of OOP capabilities compared to what .NET offers, I do not anticipate a Porsche but more a horse-and-buggy.
>
>We're hoping for a bit more than that <bg>.

I'm sure you will!
>
>The sheer breadth of classes available in the .NET Framework can definitely be daunting! I learn best by documenting, so when I first started looking at the .NET Framework, I created a Rational Rose model of the entire Framework by hand, including several class diagrams for each namespace showing the relationships between all classes in the Framework (over 2000)...This took a few months, but it allowed me to get a firm grasp on what the Framework had to offer.

An excellent learning technique for me too. A few months would stretch to years doing this part time part nights.

>
>In reality, although VFP has only 35 different base classes, it has *hundreds* of commands that newbies need to learn. Newbies to .NET need to learn which class/method correspond to each of these. Once you get a handle on the .NET Framework, you'll find it's very consistent, and logical. In VFP, for each basic subset of functionality, newbies have to find and learn how to use all of the related commands. In .NET, you need to find the right class, and all of the related methods are on that class. For example, the .NET Framework's Path class gathers all of the disparate Visual FoxPro commands that deal with paths and file names (JUSTFNAME, JUSTPATH, JUSTEXT, etc.) into a single class. This makes it easy to find what you're looking for. Another good example is string manipulation. In VFP there are many different commands that allow you to manipulate strings, but in the .NET Framework, the String class gathers all of these into a single object. Once you understand the basic structure of
>the .NET Framework, this can definitely alleviate some of the learning curve.

I'm sure this is true. Have you come across any publication that does a good job of this that people like me might use?
But I also see a bunch of new capabilites (overloading, static variables, executing non-instantiated methods, sub-classing virtually anything, ad infinitum it seems) that I would bet that it takes an entirely new mindset from the one we are used to with VFP.
>
>I liken the .NET Framework to a construction site that contains huge piles of raw building materials...everything you need is there, but it's difficult to know where to begin. ...SNIP

Sort of like in "Junkyard Wars" (the TV program that I assume you've seen) < s >.

>
>In Mere Mortals .NET, we are leveraging what we have learned over the past five years about design patterns, functionality, extensibility and flexibility, and applying what we've learned to Mere Mortals .NET. This allows us to provide a very capable framework that is well ahead of the horse and buggy, and provides all of the functionality that developers using our Visual FoxPro framework now experience.

I'm sure that it will be most useful.

cheers

>
>Regards,