Perhaps my post was a delusion which arose from working on a 1993  
Dodge Caravan and getting transmission fluid in my system. :)

Nah. I was just hopeful, and hoping. And I still hope.

I think that my mention of linear procedural was possibly an error  
though, due to a fixation with the prior ways.  I'd use any environs  
which took the edge off Cocoa, via a simpler object system. Such I  
think is the way forward.

As I said earlier, I think MaxClass should be looked at seriously;  
it's an existing approach, fully object and with advanced features it  
would seem , yet written in our familar FB like vernacular, and would  
make messaging very easy from what I've seen of it. If my take on  
that is correct, is that not already a win-win?

It's done in our familar vernacular, yet is object, so applying as an  
overlay, or intermingling with Cocoa, might be easier?

Some people here are fine with Cocoa, they are ready to move on from  
FB entirely. Some will need to use an FB like something. Others, like  
me, want something that is just simpler and with more power than the  
current visionings and prior...and which does more for the user, like  
FB used to. The current is a hackfest due to both design choices and  
a need to do things in a timely way to gain some traction with new  
API's. But all this, for years, has left more and more up to the  
user.  If there is a march forward to a new living FB something, I'd  
like it to be user-centric, and less involved, able to do some of  
that Cocoa magic using not much code.

  And not really sure we should go with "FB" and that model maybe? We  
need a new paradigm and product which evolves FB into NB. Now Basic.  
I'm tired of that 'future' in the name, it's lived up to it for far  
too long as to being modern...in the future. (years late is what I  
mean) : )

Seems logical to me that we consider an existing object FB approach  
though, to overlay onto a Cocoa object approach, but I don't know  
what I don't know.

Thanks for listening.

Robert

On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Robert Purves wrote:

>
> Brian S wrote:
>
>> [...] adopting a objective model would require more syntax changes  
>> than we have seen to date since I don’t see how we can write  
>> procedural code that runs as objective. I suspect it would require  
>> so many changes to app source code that I would expect to hear  
>> comments like: “If I’ve got to learn a whole new language it might  
>> as well be Objective-C”.
>
>
> Suppose FB6, along with FBtoObjectiveC.app, comes into existence.
> How would its hypothetical "Objective-FutureBasic" language work?
> Especially, how would it allow Objective-C messaging, access to the  
> Cocoa framework, and so on?
>
> One way to think about the question is to assume a simple do- 
> nothing class:
>
> @interface MyAppController : NSObject
> {
> }
> @end
>
> @implementation MyAppController
> - (id)init
> {
>   [super init];
>   return self;
> }
> @end
>
> and consider what would be the FB6 code that generates the  
> Objective-C above.
>
> '---------------------
>           ???
>    your FB6 code here
> '---------------------
>
> The FB6 code should be easily translated, otherwise nobody will  
> want to develop FBtoObjectiveC.app.
> It should also be friendly and inviting to FB5 programmers,  
> otherwise they won't want to use FB6.
> These constraints make it hard for me to come up with a  
> satisfactory answer.
>
> Robert P.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: futurebasic- 
> unsubscribe@...
>