[futurebasic] Re: [FB] Containers and arrays

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

From: Alain Pastor <apastor@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:56:15 +0200
jonathan wrote:
> 
> 
> > Containers and dynamic arrays are highly valuable additions. I find
> > also exciting to see the language still evolving.
> 
> ok, let me repeat [read my lips] these things are great. i am not
> complaining. i am asking about energy and priorities. staz'n'andy did things
> like these 'cos folks howled for them. i ask did we howl for the right
> things? and how best to howl in future.

The aforementioned additions are probably less of a pain than it may
seem, well, at least they are easier to include in FB^3 than it
would have been with FBII. Now, to allow a greater integration of
FB^3 to the Mac OS, it is likely that a new Runtime must be
designed. Currently two runtimes are candidates for the task : the
Appearance Runtime and the OOP Runtime, and they are not yet ready
for prime time, but very close to completion, I think.
> 
> i have said on this list and in conversations with yourself the fine
> achievement that FB is. i also understand that resources are a playoff, if
> s'n'a work on this, they can't simultaneously work on that. so, debate. in
> order to see where folks see priorities for the future. as this is FB debate
> i posted here, not in a beta list as it is not a request for features, nor
> in an X-FB list as it is not a discussion about old rich [washed out] hippy
> musiciens and the abuse of chemical substances.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > Maybe your requests are relevant,
> 
> They are not requests. I *personally* would like to see them. I have no wish
> to impose my vision of things on all, so i didn't bombard mail to staz. i
> hope that through discussions here staz will get a better idea [using a
> coeficient for certains 'loudness' values] of what is the perceived wants
> and needs around FB.
> 
OK, I misused the word request, so take it as a figure of speech.

> > but you must keep in mind that a
> > lot of works are undertaken in many directions (Appearance, OOP,
> > Carbon, Game engine, new PG and probably new Editor) that require a
> > major rewrite while the features you mentioned can currently be
> > implemented by good coders in their apps.
> 
> I remarked on this in my post. perhaps i didn't say it enough. it is not an
> easy task, timewise and resourcewise to create a new runtime. create an FB^3
> one completely compatible down to idiosyncracities with FBII is/was hell for
> them. but how long should this go on?
> 
I have the feeling that the FBII compatibility is achieved, so I
believe that your expectations must point now towards the new
runtimes that are coming.

> how many years has andy been programming FB? in that time he has certainly
> learnt a  lot of stuff, but he's stuck in the conceptual framework that ZB
> initially was. perhaps if he started today he would do things differently...
> so the idea of historical compatibility will always be played off against
> new possibilities [not features, which is offering more for the same price,
> but possibilities, which is expanding the languagae/framework/concepts to
> allow future growth, follow mac os evolution, look at other levels of
> abstraction]. one day, surely, the time will come when the conceptual shell
> of FB will have served its purpose and then will s'n'a be still stuggling to
> stay within that framework?
> 
> > You seem to imply that there is a waste of time, as to me, today I
> > think that the waste of time, if any, was due to the FBII
> > compatibility issue. I perfectly understand why it is like this, but
> > frankly if FB^3 is the successor of FBII it is not its direct
> > descendant, I mean it is not totally fair to take into account the
> > past ten years when considering FB^3. Personally, I am constantly
> > amazed by the amount of work done between two releases and you must
> > know that a great part of it is not even visible for the final user
> > who also takes his/her time to chew up the new features introduced.
> > So, like someone has said, give time to time.
> 
> no, it is not a waste of time; i did not say that, i did not want to imply
> it. time is a resource that s'n'a must decide how to use to the best
> advantage of the FB project. it's a permanent playoff, if they do one thing,
> they probably won't have the time to do another. and whereas i can find the
> occasional bug [or mostly, non-conformities between docs and apps], or make
> the occasional construcive suggestion on the beta-list, i am not able to
> write a runtime. that is beyond my small gnome-shaped neurones. i also
> believe that were i able to do so, it would be a poor beast as i don't have
> the experience and vision that andy does in the matter.
> 
> please do not mistake debate - frank, honest, questionning and debate - with
> negative criticism.
> 
I didn't see your questionings as negative criticism, but I have the
feeling it put a heavy burden on Staz shoulders as if he were not
aware of all the things that remain to do and I just think that what
is needed is time.
OK, if you speak of wishes, I'm waiting for a new PG Appearance
Runtime compliant, I'm not holding my breath though.
> [snip]
> 
> > Grouchy or not, you are certainly a bit impatient, normally, this is
> > where third parties should have a role to play filling the gap (cf.
> > FutureFrames, dataShell, MIDWorld).
> 
> i said that some parts can be filled with third parties. there should be a
> healthy third-party environment around FB. but integrating core apple
> technologies into FB, in a coherent transparent manner, is not the realm of
> third-party apps.
> 
Well, I tend to agree with you, but this point can be discussed, it
is not like the technolgies you have mentioned were not already
accessible from FB.

> 
> PPS. the paris FBers are, after the visits of Chris Henkel and Sylvain,
> meeting jay reeve tonite! any other listers should feel free to come along
> too! alain, where is the photo gammery that we were supposed to do of these
> meetings? and did sylvain send the photos?
> 
No.
See you later.

-- 

Cheers

Alain

-----------------------------------------------------
FB^3 in Europe:  http://euro.futurebasic.com/
FB II Pouch:     http://www.pixmix.com/FB/outils.html
-----------------------------------------------------