----- SNIPPAGE
>That really depends on your way of thinking. As a professional contract programmer I wouldn't dream of writing an application framework. One of the prime tenets of OOP is reuse of code and not 'reinventing the wheel'.

Surely this was *also* the case before VFP's OOP. No real news here!
>
>You say that you evaluated 3. How long did you take for this evaluation? Why those three and isn't just 3 a bit of a small sample to then be saying that serious programmers could do better than this?

Well there could be at least a little accuracy in this. . . none of these "experts" were experts in OOP (especially the VFP variety) when they tackled their products. The language itself was new and has subsequently been found to be lacking in a few things. These initial "frameworks" may well be rudimentary for these very reasons.
>
>Your implication is that the creators of the frameworks you evaluted are not serious programmers and you are, which is a laughable sentiment since these frameworks were written by probably the most respected programers in the FoxPro world. You also imply that since these three, in your opinion, are not suitable that the rest of the frameworks aren't either. Yet more nonsense.

Please refer to my prior statement. It may not be nice to state the impression that an evaluation of the content suggested less than robust programming, but it is an opinion. Just because "experts" wrote them doesn't make them perfect. I wonder how many of them would state categorically that they would leave them exactly as-is now that they have a coupla years more experience under their belts?? They wouldn't be "experts" if any of them said so.

My 2-cents worth
Jim N
>
>Mark Austen
>[Schooner Software Limited]