Steven,

*Hopefully* you have confused my response with someone else's I did not say that VFP's commercial frameworks were written by novices. I *did* say that they likely were not *THAT* "expert" in OOP given that OOP was so new to the FP domain and they were previously known for their FD expertise.

I did mean to infer that possibly by NOW at least some of them would *probably* do things differently than they did initially, given *both* what they now know *and* how the language is progressing.

You really seem to be one who takes contradictory argument/viewpoints as "flaming", and I find that truly bothersome in an adult environment. If you intend to continue in the same vein, then please don't bother!

Jim N

>Jim,
>
>I think you'll find, if you look around, that VFP's commercial frameworks are broader, deeper, and more functional than any frameworks available in all the other major languages. Moreover I can name at least three that are *brilliantly* supported with sub-24 hour response times, seven days a week, that rarely include the phrase "you can't get there from here".
>
>And I find that your allusion that VFP's commercial frameworks were written by novices is disingenuous, false, and completely unsupported.
>
>Look, Jim, for the most part OOP texts written before 1994 are off-the mark and are not recommendable today. This from leading luminaries in the software industry, nevermind our niche. I think you'll find, if you bother open your eyes, that VFP's commercial frameworks stand proud and tall in the scheme of things.
>
>Are VFP's commercial frameworks perfect? No. Could some things be done differently? Definitely! Does this mean VFP's commercial frameworks are just pitiuful provincial efforts by novices? You may think so, but all evidence I've seen strongly indicates otherwise.