>>At some point you will not be able to run code that targeted an OS that has been obsolete for years.
>
>2.6 targeted DOS, UNIX, Mac and Windows. Which ones are obsolete now? Besides, the OS-specific things were made to work across platforms - for one, the filename oriented stuff in fpath.plb/foxtools.fll worked the same on all four platforms. This is not a Fortran compiler, which still includes support for punched cards. The few things which are obsolete are the @say/get engine, and the window-related commands, but the latter still work fine with forms. Foundation read is something I'd like to see kicked out (because I never made the examples work nor understood them :).
>

I was referring to DOS. Maybe obsolete is too harsh of a word, but pretty close. You mention UNIX and Mac, and I've never had to write Fox programs for those environments. That was my comment about looking at this from a different perspective.

>>I don't know for a fact but I would speculate that this puts an unnecessary burden on the language, having to add features to take advantage of a new OS's services without breaking old code.
>
>This was discussed already, and I think we had an answer from one of our guys in MSFT (JKoziol, I think) that the whole old-stuff-package takes about 0.6 megs of runtime. It's far easier to just keep it there than to spend time and effort to take it away. Besides, it may well contain a lot of stuff that we still use.

Then my speculation is off and I stand corrected. But I guess the general idea has been exposed, the purported evaluation of the would-drops vs the would-stays.

Cheers,