>1) What I´m wondering:
>One of the very first things I tried is to collect the eWebServ SCXes, VCXes and PRGs in a PJX and compile it to make it standalone, but it didn´t work. The compiler says:
>web.vcx errors: Unknown PAROOL and LANGINIT - Undefined
>and the EXE just blinks as without a READ EVENTS.

Those procedures are not essential.
You can remove calls to them.

>2) From what you´re saying (below) CODEBLCK.PRG is actually superfluous and the whole Randy Pearson effort could be replaced by a single line now?

Generally yes. However, there are some problems with EXECSCRIPT():

1. If error occurs, you don't get the exact line caused error. CODEBLCK.PRG
displays the exact line where error occurs.

2. By Rick tests, for small snippets, EXECSCRIPT() it is slower than CODEBLCK.PRG. EXECSCRIPT() creates a temporary file in windows temp directory, compiles, runs and deletes it.

3. CODEBLCK.PRG allows to use scriptmaps for HTML generation. This is used by Eeva Web server. This is the most obvious reason to use CODEBLCK.PRG.

There are also some problems with Codeblock:

1. You cannot pass parameters to it
2. Nested classes and procedures in same file cannot be used
3. CODEBLCK.PRG ignores errors if error occurs in your function called
from CODEBLCK.PRG

As I wrote, I generate html pages only from pure VFP code using Process() class methods.
Unfortunately, there is only a very small Hello world sample demonstating this included with Eeva Webserver.

So I don't use CODEBLCK.PRG and EXECSCRIPT() for this purpose.