C++ IMHO is a very powerful programming language. Many gripe about its lack
for readability, which I agree on. But as computer languages grow more and
more similar in syntax, the difference in C++ and FB^3 & successors won't be
so much the readibility or understandibility of code as it will be stuff like
runtime support (something FB excels at so well, especially with PG) and 
speed, code size, etc. (stuff which C++ has traditionally excelled at, but
if FB^3 hits the mark, the difference will be minimal most of the time).

OOP, not as much as C++, is a true haven for "reusibility" for code - thing of
something like this (I hope non-OOP people can understand this, 'cuz it's
excitin'!):

FB^3 comes with a class of "List". With OOP, all we have to do is set some
properties to control size and data content and call the constructor. Walla!
Instant List Manager list! FB has stuff like this already - buttons, windows,
etc. except they are created with a single statement. Instead, thing of something
like so:
  BEGIN CLASS "Main Window", "cWindow"
	DIM helpRect.8
	DIM currentTool%
	DIM dataHandle&

	PROPERTY oVisible = oVisible
	
	BEGIN METHOD redrawMain
		'yadda
	END METHOD
	BEGIN METHOD showHelp
		'yadda again
	END METHOD
   END CLASS

Since the class "Main Window" is a subclass of cWindow, it inherits (can use)
all of the cWindow class functions - I'm guessing things like draw3DPane,
draw3DSeperator, etc. Youcan hide the window (once you have created an object
of type Main Window, just as you need to declare memory for record variables)
with something like :
	MainWindow myMain
	myMain.oVisible = _false
Of course, I have no idea on syntax, etc. but the possibitlies are exciting.
It all depends on what classes Staz has cooked up for us to use (which goes
back to runtime library support). Java has limited classes right now and
doesn't seem as natural to OOP as Objective-C, which makes C++ look like
fish bait when used for OOP.
Hope this clears some thigns up & makes you salivate as much as I am!

Ryan