Ken Shmidheiser wrote: > > jonathan succinctly wrote: > > >But what happens? on one hand we cry out for Fb to follow these System-level > >innovations, on the other we cry out when FB^3 breaks FBII code? Perhaps we > >must grow up and say to Staz'n'Andy: FBII has done its time, go ahead, tear > >it up, tell us how we can help you put together FB4 [or FBX, or > >whatever...]. > > > >Thanks for taking the time to post, > >:-j > > jonathan is right. > > Legacy compatibility is fine to a point. > > But when did you last use a typewriter? > > There comes a time... > > Ken > Perhaps, Tedd is right and that kind of discussion should be taken elsewhere, but I'm used to think of the FB list as the "avant-garde" in the FB community and it's difficult to avoid such a topic here. Although I agree with Jonathan and Ken at a personal level (witness my clumsy attempt to hack the Standard Runtime to make it Appearance savvy), I must admit (wearing my european cap) that it is very likely that features like containers and dynamic arrays will be much more useful for the current FB user database than additional thingamajigs in the menubar if I want to exaggerate the trait. In that regard, I continue to believe that Staz Software is doing exactly what must be done. >From what I have understood, FB^3 provides an architecture allowing to handle evolution more easily than ever before, so maybe it is just a matter of patience 'cos there are a lot of fronts to deal with at the same time. Besides, I'm wondering up to which point we are ready to digest the Appearance Runtime, the OOP Runtime and Carbon as well that might arrive at the same moment, while we are asking Staz to prepare the meal for us. But, of course, this removes nothing from the validity of Jonathan's questioning or wishes. -- Cheers Alain ----------------------------------------------------- FB^3 in Europe: http://euro.futurebasic.com/ FB II Pouch: http://www.pixmix.com/FB/outils.html -----------------------------------------------------