Robert Covington wrote:

>David Blache wrote:
>>Once you get the concept of OOP in your head, the rest is a breeze, and I
>>do mean a breeze.  The hardest thing about OOP is understanding the
>>concept.  And as far as ease of programming goes, if you think PG is
>>good, OOP will blow you away.
>
>I aqppreciate your comments David, but what about those of us who don't use
>PG all that much? Are we doomed to having to finally learn and use it all
>now. ;)

Nope.  You don't have to use it if you don't want to.

>I guess I mean will it be all that much harder for a non-PG user to 
>understand?

It's not PG.  PG is tons more complicated than OOP.  It will be easier to 
learn.

>What about he "manual" coder? (As I would call a non-PG user)

FB^3 will let you code plain simple programs without the use of any 
visual interface building mechanisms.

>Here is a question: if somebody doesn't want to learn OOP, can they still
>write in the "old" FB II style code-wise and still have it all work in FB^3?

Yep.  :-)

>Or will old programs have to be updated to include classes and properties
>and objects to run, meaning we still have to learn the new stuff?

Nope.  :-)

========================================
|       David Blache - Developer       |
========================================
|   Staz Software, Inc - Stazologist   |
|        (tech@...)       |
|   Microcosm Software, Inc. - Owner   |
|        (microcsm@...)        |
========================================