Moving the MC IDE forward

[J. Landman Gay]

On 7/12/03 10:02 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:

> Then I don't understand all the talk of customizing MC. If it's near 
> perfect (for those who like simplicity) the way it is, let it stay that 
> way. It won't take a team effort to keep it compatible with any 
> foreseeable changes to the engine.

I don't recall much talk about altering the MC IDE. What I did see was a 
desire by long-time users to retain the simplicity and straight-forward 
nature of what is available right now. I suspect that a bit of 
embellishment will inevitably occur, but in general I think the goal is 
simply to retain the compatibility of the relatively static interface 
that MC has had all these years.

For those who prefer MC's simplicity, I don't see any harm in continuing 
to assure it is compatible with the most current Rev engine. People will 
still have to purchase Revolution to get full access to long scripts, so 
RR won't lose any money by allowing folks a choice of IDEs. They have 
already said they won't support alternate IDEs, so it won't cost them 
anything.

-- 
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com