>  >> No question for me -- it would be FB^3 PGPro. But, that's only
>>>  experience talking.
>>>
>>
>  >Tedd,
>
>Tedd doesn't put "<my> experience talking" there. :)

Well... in that context, who's experience would it be? It is implied 
that it is <my> experience and not the experience of the <entire 
universe>.

>Since this is an issue, Start two. A PG version, and a plain vanilla
>version. :) Bail out of the one that soon presents problems above the other
>one in too high a proportion. This would be a good solution if effort was
>the main concern.
>
>Sometimes I wish I had used PG to do things, but I always like the control
>I have with a standard Runtime project. Debugging someone else's PG project
>always drives me crazy. Debugging a regular FB Program, that I can handle.

You know, I'm always perplexed by people who say things likes that. I 
personally don't see that much difference between an extremely well 
written FB program and a PG Program. The only real difference I see 
is in the GUI in window design and the like. But, if one looks at the 
way STAZ has designed PG to handle buttons, windows, cursors, and a 
million other things, it really comes down to recognizing a system 
that works. It's a logical system that has been thought out to work 
under all circumstances.

In contrast, one can reinvent all these things so that they feel like 
they have control, but it's not control -- it's really just 
understanding what's happening. After all, if you write the code 
yourself, then you understand what the code does. Whereas, if STAZ 
has written the code, then it's harder to understand what he is doing 
-- which is, and has been, amazing -- and maybe that's the problem.

My $0.02.

tedd