>>>>
>>>>Last time I heard of Genscreen* it was said "yes, there's a new version, it's called scx".
>>>
>>>If you think about it, ClassBrowserX on VFPx is exactly the newest replacement for Genscreenx. It allows to generate runnable code (PRG) for any form.
>>
>>With all the controls subclassed for the occasion? Ummm... something I always wanted to do but couldn't find a compelling reason other than "it can be done". Peter Robinson's conversion of everything into prgs (manually - and in quite an orderly manner, I've seen the code) does run faster and produces thinner exe, to the tune of about 50%. I'll really have to take a look at
>>ClassBrowserX, it really may do the same, just automagically.
>
>I know Microsoft doesn't generate .prg codes from .scx files because of run faster. But you say opposite...

A .prg based class uses less memory, simply by not having to load all the fields in the .vcx (timestamps etc). Visual classes, OTOH, have visual designers, so you can nudge the objects by a pixel or two without looking for the line of code where the size and/or position was set, and you can do a lot of other things which are simply easier to do that way. The visual classes being in a .dbf has released a lot of potential benefits - the objects are records, and the visual designers have mapped many things they do into table manipulation, which is what Fox was always good at.

So visual classes are easier to build, easier to maintain (to a point), and the difference at memory consumption and instantiation speed is negligible nowadays. Programmatic classes are leaner, lighter on memory, and require a bit more work at design time. So it's a trade off.