>>Both styles are equally valid. > >Why do you write that? Without lingo, it is very difficult to be interactive.
I write that because not all Director programs need interactivity. A slide show, a screen mock-up, a linear presentation (think Beavis and Butthead), and lots of other stuff can be done with Director. That's one of its beauties. It can be many things to many people. It can be PowerPoint on steroids, or it can be a full-blown development environment for complex and intricate programs. Plus, you can add a lot of interactivity with behaviors from the library palette, and not have to know anything about programming. I recently collaborated with a very talented designer, Jon Skolnick, who uses Director strictly as a score-based tool. He's not a programmer, and has no desire to be. However, he created about a dozen very, very nice linear movies about our products. I write the central engine in Lingo that did some fancy stuff on the screen, then played one of his movies, returned to my engine, did some more pyrotechnics, then called another of his linear movies, and so on. The result was quite effective. >Another thing, I am quite certain your designer earns much, much less >than you, the lead programmer. Perhaps. But perhaps he or she is happier being a designer. I'm happier being a coder. Plus, a designer who knows Director probably makes more than a designer who doesn't. The point is, there is no one "right" way to do Director. Programmers must not look down our noses at "mere designers," and vice versa. I'm glad you've chosen the programming approach, because you can certainly exploit more of the power of Director that way, but you and I have to be careful not to develop chauvinistic, elitist attitudes. >It certainly doesn't matter if complicated programming stuff stifles the >right brain, it is the left brain that does the thinking. But it's the left brain that is more creative and artistic. Again, which is better? Aren't we better off with both types? >>It's like the old saying--there are three types of people: those who can >>count, and those who can't. > >I count only two types of people here� Sorry... I think there's a reference in the Lingo dictionary, under "senseOfHumor." Check the ramifications of setting it to FALSE. >I am not sure what you are talking about. If I asked for the example, I >hope you will not become too frustrated. No, I won't get frustrated, but if you look back at my other post, you will see that it contained an example, along with a detailed explanation. Look it over, look in the Lingo Dictionary under "new," and try to absorb it. >If Director keeps calling the handler, is this an example of �repeat >looping�? And wouldn�t that � hang � Director? No, and probably not. If you set the timeOut period to, say, one millisecond, and called it repeatedly, that would definitely slow Director down, but it's not the same as a tight repeat loop. A timeOut callback handler is simply a handler that fires on a timed basis, rather than a frame basis. Cordially, Kerry Thompson [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
