>> I'm starting to get the impression that some of this "good advice"
>> is all about buying into their ".NET tools/courseware", or trying
>> to get others to validate their decisions.

The XFiles are over baby ... and Conspiracy Theory was just a movie. .NET appears to me to be a natuaral evolution of software development where they have normalized all the *functionality* out of the language and placed it into a framework central to the computer ... not a language. This reduces software engineering costs from MS perspective I'd think. They now focus on maintaining the .NET Framework for changes vice C++, VB, VFP, Fortran, Assembler or any other monolithic app builder.

>> My "advice" is, if one is going to learn .NET, they'd be better served
>> learning the unadulterated stuff first as opposed to hiding behind
>> a "framework" (or whatever).

Wrong ... in my opinion. The unadulterated stuff is mindblowingly large and sometimes not very friendly. I'd much rather look at the approach that several other professionals have taken and use that information as a starting point of where to begin studying vice trying to tackle ADO.NET, ASP.NET, C#, VB.NET, WinForms, WebForms, and oh yea, not to mention a whole freakin' framework of thousands of objects. Teach me what I have to know first, within a structured environment, learn how the structured environment works so the basics don't escape me then branch out on my own opening up the box of Pandora when I have the time and the inclination.


>> Odds are, the next ".NET employer" (if you're not doing this on your
>> own) will have little interest in "your favorite framework/tool"
>> (since they may have their own), or exclude you because you don't
>> know the basics and can't program in "raw mode".

This is oh so true which is why one should not purchase a .NET application generator but a .NET Framework ... the difference to me is that the Framework exposes its code so I can view what's under the hood. Tearing apart the original Flash Creative Management Codebook I not only taught myself VFP syntax, I taught myself inheritance, encapsulation, polymorphism and all the other OO buzzwords. This then morphed into a higher level abstractions called The Five Object Architecture which applies with ANY language. So, in my opinion here, you are correct ... anyone who doesn't understand what's going on inside the framework is going to have a hard time consulting or working at a company that won't let it be implemented.

>> I'm sure there will be more .NET frameworks in the future, but it
>> will be from outfits with a lot more resources (and expertise in
>> .NET) than ex-VFP coders tinkering away in their spare time.

Gerry, these statements make me feel that you are a very angry man. Why insult someone's work simply because they originated/made-a-living in VFP? VFP is a fully object oriented language ... anyone that understood it inside and out and maintained a well designed framework there (MM for VFP) (implying the object oriented principals required to do this) should not have too much of a problem switching to C# and VB.NET and creating a "framework" that is intelligently architected and robust in that domain either. The more "frameworks" I study and understand the more professional I become ... period.

It's even better when its not my MONEY ... bwhaaa haaaa ... the pleasure of being a 9:00 to 5:00 guy again is not lost on me.

CTB