On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:43:20 -0600, "Larry Serflaten"
<serflaten@usinternet.com> wrote:

>"Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote
>> I thought maybe this may be of help to you as well:
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stability
>> The first definition is:
>> ==========================================
>> 1. The state or quality of being stable, especially:
>> Resistance to change, deterioration, or displacement.
>> Constancy of character or purpose; steadfastness.
>> Reliability; dependability.
>> ==========================================
>> Do you think that, just possibly, this may apply to programming
>> languages and environments?

>Sure it does, reliability and dependability being chief among them.
>But it could be referring to the the current version's reliablility and
>dependability, as I have explained before.

Perhaps you're confusing the platform's reliability with the
language's reliability.

It seems clear that code written in MS Basic has deteriorated and been
displaced even without having been changed!

>You might (with some adjustments) even use the second definition:
>The ability of an object, such as a ship or aircraft, (or a Textbox) to maintain
>equilibrium (normal use) or resume its original, upright position after displacement,
> as by the sea or strong winds (errant user input).
>Note it says 'The ability of an object..' - an object - is a singular reference, it does
>not say 'The ability of several versions of an object...' as you would intend.

LOL. Yup, instead of remaining upright, VB has gone belly up!

>I already posted one definition of stability, as it specifically applies to computer
>hardware and software, but I see you didn't want to accept that. Instead you'll take
>a more general definition only to turn and twist it into what you want it to say, right?

Hmmm... it seems to me a more general definition is preferable, but to
each his own.

>As I said, you can use it however you want, but since computer programming is
>about using precise syntax, in a specific order, I would think the terms used to
>describe the work, should also be of a more precise nature. Without your personal
>web page for a definition, 'language stability' is a rather ambigious term. It could
>mean one of a few different things, your (and my) definition included....

I don't agree with your assessment, but for clarity's sake perhaps
when we use the term Language Stability
(http://www.mvps.org/vb/index2.html?tips/stability.htm) we should
provide the link for context.

I'll probably forget to do that, but maybe you can remind me.

Language Stability is a *feature* I wish VB had!
Error 51
Error 3
Error 9