[futurebasic] Re: [FB] [FB^3] PGPro, Object or native

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : May 2001 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: Chris Stasny <staz@...>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:32:41 -0500
>snip
>>
>>  PGPro
>>generally makes things easier.
>
>As a PG user I tend to agree and it is easy to add features.
>
>>  However, I have seen items on this board that
>>indicate that PRPro is a deprecated product
>
>I haven't seen any indication from Staz that PG is deprecated. It 
>hasn't received a serious feature update in a while but nothing 
>about elimination. Some recent posts on this list seem to indicate 
>that an upgrade is in PG's future. Staz?


PG will be rewritten after the appearance manager runtime is 
complete. It is intended to be a front end, not only to the 
appearance runtime, but also to the oop engine. It will change a lot. 
The now OOP shell will become a bit more oopish and will be directly 
linked to the editor. Code will not be easily transportable between 
the old and new PG.

As to another post involving resources in PG: There are several 
things to consider here and you need to understand how OS-X works. It 
takes multiple files and dumps them into a folder to form an 
application. One the these files happens to be a collection of BNDL 
resources that must contain the suffix ".rsrc". Other files may be 
things like PICT files or data files or just the application code 
itself.

You can see how this works by creating a project (via Apple's version 
of PG) in OS-X. It's just one file, right? Drag the project file to 
your System 9 partition.

Now reboot in 9 to find a folder containing 3 files. You see, the 
OS-X Finder handles things in a very different way, but applications 
don't have to abandon resources right now. We do have to use yuky 
unix suffixes tho :(



Best,

-STAZ  ~)~

800.348.2623 Orders  http://www.stazsoftware.com
228.255.7086 FAX     mailto:staz@...