> there were also many that could that weren't made by Microsoft - e.g. Borland Delphi, Power BASIC, a bunch of Smalltalk implementations, etc. I know. I’m not

> there were also many that could that weren't made by Microsoft - e.g. Borland Delphi, Power BASIC, a bunch of Smalltalk implementations, etc. I know. I’m not saying “only Microsoft languages” could. I’m responding to your absolute stating that not “all” Windows languages could. I’m simply saying that absolute only works with regards to Microsoft languages. I’m not suggesting it’s limited to only Microsoft languages. You really need to calm down a little here mate because your comments are an over reaction to the replies being made. > I know what they were, what i referred to was what they should have been considering that they were (potentially) part of the same package But they weren’t part of the same package. So your argument falls flat on the very first assumption. > made by the same company who had access to the source code, libraries, etc to make these two programs "know" about each other in a more integrated way than what external 3rd party development tools were able to do. This is another assumption. If you’d spent any time working for a company like Microsoft you’d quickly realise that different products might fall under different teams who have very little cross pollination. I’ve seen this problem time and time again in larger tech companies and it’s often just as frustrating for the employees as it is for the customers. > This was about a what could have been, not about what it was I got your point was about “what ifs” but the problem is your “what ifs” are based on assumptions that don’t hold true. So you’d need to stack up a number of other “what ifs” just to get to the stage that your original “what if” is even imaginable.