An informal poll....

[Pierre Sahores]

jbv wrote:
>>>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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> metacard mailing list
> metacard at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
> 
> 
Thanks for this !

-- 
Bien cordialement, Pierre Sahores

Inspection académique de Seine-Saint-Denis
Serveurs d'applications et SGBDR (Web/PGI)
Penser et produire l'avantage compétitif