Re: Statements from Kevin in 2003
On 04/11/2011 03:39 PM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:00:15 -0700, Kevin Miller wrote: On 11/04/2011 10:46, Wilhelm Sanke sa...@hrz.uni-kassel.de wrote: So much for the - hopefully lifelong - relationship between Livecode engines and the MC IDE. Well I certainly never said lifelong :) But hey, we've kept up our bargain for 8 years now and still intend to continue to do so. I have absolutely no idea what you might not be happy about... Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/ LiveCode: Compile-free coding, the faster path to better apps Kevin, you are welcome. Thank you for the almost instant reply. What we were somewhat unhappy about (see some of the posts in the recent thread [MC_IDE] Quick Poll) was that it had become more difficult than before to integrate the new Livecode engines into the MC IDE and that we needed one and a half year to build a new MC standalone builder. Richard Gaskin is going to deliver that new one during the next weeks. Could you possibly do something about this and facilitate these processes of integration for future versions of Livecode? This must not be too difficult. Many thanks in advance and best regards, Wilhelm If one faces facts; 8 years is more than a lifetime in terms of computer software. ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Statements from Kevin in 2003
On 11/04/2011 10:46, Wilhelm Sanke sa...@hrz.uni-kassel.de wrote: So much for the - hopefully lifelong - relationship between Livecode engines and the MC IDE. Well I certainly never said lifelong :) But hey, we've kept up our bargain for 8 years now and still intend to continue to do so. I have absolutely no idea what you might not be happy about... Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/ LiveCode: Compile-free coding, the faster path to better apps ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Statements from Kevin in 2003
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:00:15 -0700, Kevin Miller wrote: On 11/04/2011 10:46, Wilhelm Sanke sa...@hrz.uni-kassel.de wrote: So much for the - hopefully lifelong - relationship between Livecode engines and the MC IDE. Well I certainly never said lifelong :) But hey, we've kept up our bargain for 8 years now and still intend to continue to do so. I have absolutely no idea what you might not be happy about... Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/ LiveCode: Compile-free coding, the faster path to better apps Kevin, you are welcome. Thank you for the almost instant reply. What we were somewhat unhappy about (see some of the posts in the recent thread [MC_IDE] Quick Poll) was that it had become more difficult than before to integrate the new Livecode engines into the MC IDE and that we needed one and a half year to build a new MC standalone builder. Richard Gaskin is going to deliver that new one during the next weeks. Could you possibly do something about this and facilitate these processes of integration for future versions of Livecode? This must not be too difficult. Many thanks in advance and best regards, Wilhelm ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Statements from Kevin in 2003
Hi Wilhelm, On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:00:15 -0700, Kevin Miller wrote: On 11/04/2011 10:46, Wilhelm Sanke sa...@hrz.uni-kassel.de wrote: So much for the - hopefully lifelong - relationship between Livecode engines and the MC IDE. Well I certainly never said lifelong :) But hey, we've kept up our bargain for 8 years now and still intend to continue to do so. I have absolutely no idea what you might not be happy about... Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/ LiveCode: Compile-free coding, the faster path to better apps Kevin, you are welcome. Thank you for the almost instant reply. What we were somewhat unhappy about (see some of the posts in the recent thread [MC_IDE] Quick Poll) was that it had become more difficult than before to integrate the new Livecode engines into the MC IDE and that we needed one and a half year to build a new MC standalone builder. I don't think that I am talking/writing chinese, do I, Wilhelm? For the last time: 1. It was not too difficult to create the standalone builder. 2. RunRev supplied all neccesary info to do this. 3. It were MY PERSONAL PROBLEMS that hindered me to do so in that time! 4. We have been talking about this several times in the last weeks here on the list and I pointed this 3) out also several times very clearly! ... Wilhelm Best Klaus -- Klaus Major http://www.major-k.de kl...@major.on-rev.com ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Statements from Kevin in 2003
On 11/04/2011 13:39, Wilhelm Sanke sa...@hrz.uni-kassel.de wrote: Kevin, you are welcome. Thank you for the almost instant reply. What we were somewhat unhappy about (see some of the posts in the recent thread [MC_IDE] Quick Poll) was that it had become more difficult than Unfortunately I don't have time to digest this entire thread today. before to integrate the new Livecode engines into the MC IDE and that we needed one and a half year to build a new MC standalone builder. Richard Gaskin is going to deliver that new one during the next weeks. It is a lot of work to maintain any IDE and as the number of capabilities and supported platforms have expanded, standalone building has by definition had many features added to it. We have made it as simple as is possible while providing that expanded feature set. Indeed the process of building a basic standalone is simpler than it has ever been. Could you possibly do something about this and facilitate these processes of integration for future versions of Livecode? This must not be too difficult. Many thanks in advance and best regards, My offer was to continue to support your capability to keep your IDE up to date by making it possible to continue to integrate engines and new features if you chose to do so. To that end we provided complete details of what is required to update your standalone builder to the keeper of your IDE when last requested a long, long time ago (over a year at least). I did not offer to write the MC IDE for you and such an offer would not have been welcome, we already maintain an IDE, this is your IDE which is open source. It is down to those that maintain MetaCard to keep it up to date. I'm sure the current keeper of your IDE can verify this, and that consequently your statements are quite unfounded. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/ LiveCode: Compile-free coding, the faster path to better apps ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Statements from Kevin in 2003
On 11.04.11 at 13:54 +0100 Kevin Miller apparently wrote: My offer was to continue to support your capability to keep your IDE up to date by making it possible to continue to integrate engines and new features if you chose to do so. To that end we provided complete details of what is required to update your standalone builder to the keeper of your IDE when last requested a long, long time ago (over a year at least). Kevin, Klaus has just clarified the delay issue. However, I believe that the deeper issue is related to new standalone builder being completely (as opposed to partially) locked, which has created an obstacle for contributions from other MC developers, aside its official keeper. Robert ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Statements from Kevin in 2003
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 05:53:58 -0700, Klaus on-rev wrote: and that we needed one and a half year to build a new MC standalone builder. I don't think that I am talking/writing chinese, do I, Wilhelm? For the last time: 1. It was not too difficult to create the standalone builder. 2. RunRev supplied all neccesary info to do this. 3. It were MY PERSONAL PROBLEMS that hindered me to do so in that time! 4. We have been talking about this several times in the last weeks here on the list and I pointed this 3) out also several times very clearly! Klaus Sorry Klaus, You were definitely not talking Chinese to me, but the receiver of a message must still actively construe the meaning for himself, which then may come out even wrong or deviate from the intended original meaning. Among other things, my interpretation was influenced also by the longer discussion between Sept 3 and Oct 7 2009 in threads Metacard 4 and Standalone Building on this list. Looking over this discussion again later led me apparently to overestimate the difficulties posed by the new way of standalone building. My impression was indeed that the new standalone building design, although a minor factor compared to you special situation, nevertheless caused at least some substantial difficulties for adapting the MC standalone builder. So, sorry again, receive my apologies. By the way, I like Chinese. I wrote a Metacard stack some time ago introducing about 200 basic Kanji characters in different learning modes. The incentive for this was a longer East-Asian working experience in South Korea, where they use - similar to Japan - a limited set of Kanji characters as part of their written language. Best, Wilhelm ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Statements from Kevin in 2003
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 05:54:53 -0700, Kevin Miller wrote My offer was to continue to support your capability to keep your IDE up to date by making it possible to continue to integrate engines and new features if you chose to do so. To that end we provided complete details of what is required to update your standalone builder to the keeper of your IDE when last requested a long, long time ago (over a year at least). I did not offer to write the MC IDE for you and such an offer would not have been welcome, we already maintain an IDE, this is your IDE which is open source. It is down to those that maintain MetaCard to keep it up to date. I'm sure the current keeper of your IDE can verify this, and that consequently your statements are quite unfounded. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/ LiveCode: Compile-free coding, the faster path to better apps Hi Kevin, I certainly did not request nor expect you to write or maintain the MC IDE for us. I think the group of MC IDE users is aware that maintaining and adapting the MC IDE is our responsibility alone. Richard has made that especially clear again in a recent post, but it has been our understanding ever since. What I was referring to were the changes made not long ago, which now require a slightly different way of integrating a new Rev/Livecode engine. Until then, we just could take a new engine, possibly needed to rename it, and simply drop it into the folder of the MC IDE and it would work immediately. Now we need to prepare a specific folder structure before a Livecode engine will be accepted as a working part inside the MC IDE. It took some trial-and-error and some members of our group to figure out how to do this. The routine is now more or less established and can be looked up in writing for reference when it needs to be applied with a new engine. No big deal, of course, a minor nuisance only - and once you got the changed folder structure it may be as easy as before to simply drag a new engine into the MC folder - unless of course another change for the necessary folder structure takes place. What I was thinking of was that it may be not a big deal for you, too, to return to a simpler way of just dropping the engine into the IDE (possibly by leaving out specific folder structure references in the Livecode engine?) or an otherwise simpler procedure. Concerning the new MC standalone builder the issues will have been solved with the new version. I think - in this sense - my statement was not quite unfounded when I asked you Could you possibly do something about this and facilitate these processes of integration for future versions of Livecode? This must not be too difficult. I ventured to ask this question as I thought that it would require only really minor efforts from your side to accomplish this. Kind regards, Wilhelm ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
