>Jess,
>
>Interesting viewpoint.
>
>When I made the switch from FPD26 & FPW26 to VFP 5 I was faced with two choices. The first was to spend a lot of time learning VFP from the basics but at the same time be unable to develop applications since I would still be learning & the other was to buy a commercial framework which I could use to produce the applications my clients were asking for with the minimum of fuss and learn VFP on the way.
>
>I chose the second of the two options as being the most practical & I have to say that I had no trouble in adopting the way of thinking that was used. That was due in part to choosing a codebook compliant framework when I had been using codebook standards for 2.6 development.
>
>I was also fortunate in that I'd been a C++ programmer & therefore objects and OOP weren't strange to me.
>
>As a result, my viewpoint on frameworks is completely the opposite to yours in that I would recommend that developers new to VFP should use a framework and at the same time as producing simple applications using it they should learn about programming in VFP.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark Austen
>[Schooner Software Limited]

Mark,

If that's the case then you're quite lucky because you already have C++ OOP concept, and how about those do not have, the beginners so to speak in OOP? Are frameworks then explains ENCAPSULATION, POLYMORPHISM and all OOP terminologies, I don't think so. IMHO, OOP in Frameworks are already applications, not explanations which are vital for a programmer's OOP foundation. And that's what I mean on BASICS/STANDARDS of VFP.