An informal poll....

[jbv]

> >
> >BTW I think one should extend the poll to Rev list...
> >I'm wondering if the responses would be similar...
> >
>
> I am very sure that the results will be quite different. My feeling
> is that dynamic scripting is not something that beginners and
> hobbysts use much. MC was strongly geared to "professional"
> developers (whatever that means) whereas Rev went after masses.

I share your opinion about different results for the poll on theRev list.

But Shari's original question didn't mention dynamic scripting...
I for one don't care too much about dynamic scripting : I understand
it's a powerful feature, but also know by experience that it's not
recommended bcause it's almost impossible to debug. Furthermore,
as several earlier posts showed, in numerous situations there are
workarounds and alternatives.

Actually I was more concerned by the way features of the engine
could be abandonned by the new RR team in a near future.
And gathering data about how Rev users envision / approach /
consider that tool, could give us insights on possible future
strategies from the RR team...

Unless a real poll proves me wrong, I guess we'd find hobbyists
(some of them quite experienced) looking for a HyperCard or
OMO reincarnation, or multimedia programers in search for a
nice (and cheaper) replacement for Director...
BTW, considering the number of bugs & crashes in Rev 1.0, I'm
surprised that licences brought enough money to buy MC...

As for me, I see it mostly these days as a LINK (or a hub) between
technologies.
Which other tool allows you to quickly prototype (and finalize) prof.
cross-platform apps that can, in a few lines of code, talk to other
similar
apps on a network, send CGI requests to a server, use XML / SQL /
PHP, eventually access openGL on each client, etc etc etc ?

Last week I had a meeting with a possible client, and I was explaining
that MC was the missing link between Director and Code Warrior.
Since I've been involved in prog. of externals in C for a few months,
I see many similarities between MC and C development : using MC
properties & functions is very closed to including libraries and using
APIs. And when the stuff is done, execution speed is pretty close.
But development time is quite different !
And last but not least, cross-platform compatibility can become a
real headache in C, while in MC it's a breeze...
And I won't even mention compilation !

And last but not least, I have the strong feeling that the future of
xTalk is not at all HC reincarnation, but rather to provide end users
with the power of Code Warrior (or eventually Visual C) without
the headaches...
And that more palettes and a less basic GUI is no big deal...
Perhaps does it mean more licenses right now, but things might
change in a near future, because end users are getting more & more
educated & experienced, projects more sophisticated, etc etc
Just compare the apps you were doing with HC in 1991 or OMO
in 1995 and what you are doing today... And imagine what you'll
be doing (or asked to do by clients) in 2006...
What will really help you : sophisticated palettes ? Or powerful
features like dynamic scripting, scriptable antialiased vector graphics,
scriptable interactive 3D, etc etc etc ?

So let's find a way to make sure that the strategy of ppl at RR (as
well as Rev list members if needed) isn't to tear up the existing
engine (by removing dynamic scripting, abandoning CGI, asking
for a license fee per platform, put your bigest fear here), but
rather to improve what already exists.

JB