Glen,

>>I feel like there was a bait & trap set for Kevin and I wondered along and stepped in it. <

Nah, Morgan didn't mean it that way ... he's just young and headstrong. <g>

>>These can all be done by us, but why? Someone else has done it well. And to say that we don't know & learn the nuts & bolts is not ture at all. <

Well, I'll agree with you up to a point. There are always those of us who possess the quest for knowledge ... and then there are those who like to keep their heads in the sand and only do the minimum that they need to do. If they don't need to learn something in order to do their job, then they won't bother.

Anyway, that's the only point that I was trying to make ... it's good to know as much as you can about whatever language you're developing in.

~~Bonnie



>Hi Bonnie.
>How are you? I feel like there was a bait & trap set for Kevin and I wondered along and stepped in it. I remember when I used to program in C, mostly in C5 & C6. I used several sets of libraries written by other people to help me along in communications & user interface. I got some flack from a couple of programmers where I worked because, of course, "Real Programmers" can do it all. And do it in Assembly, if needed. Well, it would be nonsense to say that I didn't know the nuts & bolts about C or about communication. I still worked under the hood, and mad a living doing it, but why re-invent something that others have already done, and done well?
>
>This could be a chat, rather than a discussion of MM. I know Kevin & alot of his work. We feel the framework is flexable and adds a good base to work from. The automatic data binding, business object scheme, event model, manager objects, language localizaion capabilities, and other things... These can all be done by us, but why? Someone else has done it well. And to say that we don't know & learn the nuts & bolts is not ture at all. But then we could could all program in Assembly. Then we really could learn the nuts & bolts, and atomic structure as well.
>
>Best Regards,