LR>    This is a LOT less effort than conversion of a large DOS apps *after*
LR>    a huge learning curve for just C++ and OS/2 alone - not to mention
LR>    the huge learning curve for C++ for the other operating systems.
LR>    So I am not sure how you justified going to C++ and OS/2 alone from
LR>    Pascal if you have any apps of any size and mucho man-years in them.

Depending on what your application is doing, the conversion from Pascal to
¨C/C++ should be relatively a minor task.  If your program is largely
interface ¨dependent, then yes, the conversion process would be a stickler;
however if ¨it's largely of function than you should be able to move it
fairly rapidly and ¨easily.

I've just spent the last week converting 30,000 lines (small, I know) of
code ¨to C++ and was able to compile it with little problem or effort.

LR>    In case you hadn't noticed, I am not a big fan of C++ or OOPS.  I
LR>    have *studied* it.

You should.  It eases the programming process ten fold (at least, for me). 
I ¨can approach the programming task with a more defined vision of the
final ¨output and how to get there than I can with procedural development. 
Not to ¨mention keeping the code extensible, re-usable and easier to
maintain in ¨future visions.

LR>    It (OOPS) sounded great when it came out.  However, as I have found
LR>    out, it is a lot more complicated than Pascal or 'C' and the
LR>    professional consulting demand is still not there - and if it was
LR>    there, it wouldn't be met.

OOP isn't that far above procedural, just as Pascal isn't that different
from ¨C.  C offers more, imho, but Pascal is easier to prototype and
generally ¨faster to acheive similar results.

Just my opinions, mind you, but I would keep an open mind towards moving to
¨C++.  Pascal is becoming more and more a dead end option with limited
¨technologies always behind C.  (Look how long it took to get DLLs, etc.)

Regards,

Jon Gilkison
Mind Sight Software

... Computing 101A: DEL C:\WINDOWS\*.*

--- ProBoard v2.02b4 [Reg]