Dear Geoff, can you explain to us all what happend with web 2.0?

Dear Geoff,

We (as your customers) have a couple of questions:

Question 1:
Why did Xojo decide to approach the transition web 1.0 to 2.0 different then the transition Api 1.0 to 2.0??
(regarding the impact for us as users)

because as I wrote earlier :

Question 2
How can we trust Xojo for the future … are we safe with Xojo or is this something we can expect within 10 years again with web 3.0 or is web 2.0 now something that will be properly maintained ???

Question 3

If this is the policy at Xojo that you telling us (lately), how comes that web 2.0 is released while it’s not near the functionality that we had in 1.0 … (regardless the conversion issues)

Reason for this Topic is to restore the trust (to the normal full 95% (we have to be real)) in Xojo for allot of people that are depending on Xojo on a daily basis. And haven’t received a proper explanation why Xojo is not itself as we know it (at least I don’t recognize Xojo how its reacting at this moment). Please make it clear for us.

Make no misunderstanding that we don’t want web 2.0, the new framework has allot of potential so well done Greg!!! As a new product it’s starting to be great … but it’s not a new product it’s also a update after 10 years where I think that is overlooked…

Kind regards,


The quote needs more context.

This is good policy. It’s better not to convert code at all than to risk converting code incorrectly. You don’t want Xojo changing the code in a way that obscures its intentions. Those intentions are more important than the code itself.

Besides that, I’m staying out of this one. The conversation is not going to go any differently than the last one.


Yeah … it is a good policy … So start making it perfect!!! :grin: :wink:

But speaking about context … this thread is not about a find and replace tool.
This is about where web 2.0 stands at this point in time and how we came to this point …So the quote is applying on the work that is done for web 2.0 (instead of find and replace) wherefore the policy is … as quoted


That doesn’t make any sense. You can’t just take a quote and apply it to something else. You can’t say “you want code completion 100% perfect, so why isn’t the web 2.0 transition 100% perfect.” It doesn’t work that way. You’re intentionally misusing his words to make a point, and that’s not going to earn you any respect.


@Erwin_Meijer, I’ll be surprised if Geoff responds to you here, did you not get a call from him or Dana about things? I hear they’ve been calling people, even those listed as non-pro members. Maybe you’re not on the correct list, sorry mate.

Our original plan was to support both but for technical reasons (which we discussed at XDC in 2019) we determined that supporting both was not practical.

Consider that in our 22 year history we have been through numerous transitions. 68K to PowerPC. PowerPC to Intel (soon Intel to Apple Silicon), macOS to Windows to Linux, Carbon to Cocoa, Windows 98 to Windows 7, 8 and 10, various versions of GTK for Linux, Dark Mode, our own compiler backend to LLVM and more. In nearly every case the amount of work required on your part to make the transition was little or none. Web 2.0 is the rare exception and the result of making that change is not simply the same app you had before but a far more robust app built under the hood on modern web technologies.

A few users have brought a few items to our attention that are preventing them from moving forward and we are addressing them in 1.1 if possible. What features do your projects need that are present in Web 1.0 but missing from Web 2.0?



I know for the last 12 years the trackrecord of Xojo regarding conversion.
That’s the reason why I’m shocked about web 2.0 conversion.
Frustration started with your responds to Lars Lehmann something like “stick to 2019r3 and you don’t have a problem”

What is going on??? What is wrong with Geoff???

To be honest, this conversion is gonna cost me allot of man hours / money … because we have also our own roadmap where customers are counting on … So let it be clear that I’m not pleased with it… And this is something I never had expected from Xojo … Microsoft …yeah Xojo No way…!!

I have looked back Cologne 2019 presentation and the latest also doesn’t give me much of warning.

So perhaps better communication would have been nice… (reading on the forum … more people are in shock)…

Ok … I have written all over the place that I love Xojo … And in every relation people make some mistakes … I hope that our relation is able to heal this big abrasion :grin:

Kind regards,

To be fair, Xojo has never guaranteed either backward compatibility or seamless upgrades. They have done a remarkable job of providing both, which has somewhat spoiled us. That makes Web 2.0 all the more jarring. However, I expect things to smooth out over the next few releases as Xojo (and the community) puts more functionality in place.


Erwin, I understand you are frustrated. At XDC 2019 we talked about this in detail. It looks like we didn’t get this message out elsewhere as far as I can tell. I’m sorry about that. It was our original plan to support both but as time went on it became clear that that wasn’t practical. Supporting both would have compromised Web 2.0 far too much.


I think Geoff listens a lot. On top of that he is quite patient. The quote above is from this thread, but Geoff wrote that so many times in so many threads. Knowing that, what is the benefit of asking the same question over and over and getting the same answer :thinking: ?

These days I read a lot on the forum, and I see comments repeated constantly . . . and that drives me nuts because it brings us nowhere. IMHO it’s a lost of time. Please don’t throw anything at me, all of that is boring.


I do indeed listen. I can’t always provide the answer some wish to hear because all too often we have to juggle competing priorities. Sometimes that can be misinterpreted as not listening.

The thing I like most about my job is knowing that what I do is helping others do things they might have not been able to do without Xojo. What I like least is having to choose between competing directions because often I’d rather do both. Unfortunately, doing both is sometimes not an option.


My humble opinion is that xojo web2.0 will fix a lot of drawback of web1.0, as well as, Xojo limitations. there are some suggestions around such as the best thing is to rebuild applications under the web 2.0
So personally i decided to stop misery and go forward… I only wish the new Xojo to support automatic controls’ font resizing (for multilingual ui) and offer a proper webgrid control, ad well as, more web examples code for vital things in a web world (access to google services, login using Facebook/google credentials etc)

While I know it’ll be a lot of work, I’m looking forward to 2.0. I’ve been using a 1.0 project for a couple of years; its works, but not robust or fast. On the mid-level cloud server, strains with not-too-many sessions running, plus a few other issues. Although issues may be on my end, I’m guessing they’re on both ends.
I have a reasonable developmental trail of how the 1.0 project was developed. Hope to be able to follow that trail for 2.0. Huge caveat is that I’ll need menu bars.

@Geoff_Perlman there would be a possible way like there is a separeted way for Desktop, IOS and Web it could be instead Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. There would be a way. This would separate them both one frm the other. There was the chance to do it. You don’t wanted to do it, that’s another business.

If it was practical to support both at the same time, we would have done so as that was the original plan.


It is always because of the price for it at the end. There is not enough money to do all we User want that I can understand

You do Geoff. As you stated 2019r3.2 can be used as long as needed. I understand there are remaining bugs in it and potential bugs as new technologies are released. But that’s not new for any product. If it turns out there is a show stopper to my product I will adapt. I applaud yours and all others at Xojos efforts and will continue to truck along under web 1.0 until Web 2.0 becomes too enticing to ignore. For me it is not yet there.