Okay, fair enough. What you are saying here sounds perfectly cogent to me and I think I got a much better picture of who you are than I was getting from those first thread messages. ( you kind of like that "uber-geek" label, huh? < vbg > )

One very good point that comes out of this, I think, is that those who choose to invest in 3rd party frameworks rather than write their own would be doing themselves and their clients a disservice if they did not put a great deal of effort into getting under the hood and exploring all the nooks and crannies - including the design patterns - that make the framework tick. And of course that means evaluating such frameworks by considering things like how much of the source do you have (should be pretty much all of it), how much are you required to work within the framework's IDE (should be not at all) and how much can you customize it for your own needs (should be limitlessly)

At it's best, adopting an existing framework should be opportunity for a terrific learning experience ( and if you do it right, making a *lot* of money < bg > )





>>I've gotta agree with Allan and Glen. I took him completely seriously.
>>
>>The idea that somehow you are less of a developer if you invest in a higher level of abstraction is just silly and generally is more a statement of ego. Nothing wrong with writing your own framework if it makes good business sense to do so or you just have a lot of time on your hands, but it looked to me like his whole purpose in starting this thread to chest thump and impress everyone with what a "real" developer he is.
>>
>
>No, the only of the thread was try and start some discussion about commerical frameworks. I expressed my opinion, and tried to phrase it in a way to get the most intriguing reactions possible. I'm not trying to impress anyone what a "real" developer I am, because I'm not...(I don't even program in VFP, yet.. but maybe someday). I do "develop" a rather large thread, if I don't say so myself.. <g>
>
>>If you get paid to write frameworks, great. If you get paid to solve business problems, then the issue is quite simply what value you provide to the client. This uber-geek stuff is great for chest-puffing around other programmers, but it doesn't impress clients.
>>
>Ok, this isn't about clients, because I thought this was a place for uber-geeks. See, that is what I am. I'll take a part a coffee pot just to see how it works. That is what drives me, and what I assume drives considerable number of geeks. I want to learn everything, about everything. I'm never satisified. I want to know how it all works, and how each part works. So, for myself, there is no higher level of abstraction, I want to work and understand each level of abstraction. Isn't that the fun and point of working in this industry?
>
>>It seems unreasonable not to recognize building frameworks is a very different task than solving business problems with software development. My clients would be outraged at the idea they were paying to have tools built instead of paying to have their problems solved.
>>
>
>Like I said, from some people point of view, because of business requirements or time requirements of just not wanting to, purchasing a commercial framework the right choice. But I still think the benefits of building your own outweigh the cost, and you even get to satisfy that "uber-geek" curosity.
>
>>I'm sure building a framework was the right choice for you folks and since you are involved I am equally surely you obtained a quality result. I only speak to the tone and purpose of your colleague.
>
>Morgan
>Always an "uber-geek"