I am somewhat late in answering the poll and will post it both to the
Yahoo-MC list and the Runrev Metacard list.
Ken Ray schrieb:
I'd like to take an informal poll to get an idea of how many people are
using the MC IDE, and to what extent. So if you could just reply to this
email with your answers to the 6 questions below, that would be great.
------------ METACARD IDE POLL -----------
Development (up to, but not including standalone/web/mobile deployment)
1) What percent of the time do you use the MC IDE for LiveCode
and what percent do you use the LiveCode IDE?
About 90 percent MC IDE, that makes a maximum of 10 percent for Livecode.
For special features not yet available in the MC IDE, e.g. manually
resetting the points of a polygon.
2) If you use the LiveCode IDE at all, what do you use it for, and why?
First a remark: The Livecode standalone builder surely has improved over
time. We have had situations where it was nearly or altogether
impossible to build standalones of specific stacks, for instance such
that contained a greater number of controls.
I'm aware that the current standalone builder in the MC IDE doesn't work
with the latest engines. With that in mind:
And I do not like the interfering of the Livecode standalone builder
with the building process, e.g. putting into the stack a number of
unwanted front- and backscripts or unnecessary code of the cRevGeneral
kind. I want my standalone to contain what I think it should contain.
Also there were problems with the Livecode standalone builder (did not
yet test if this issue has been resolved with the last build 4.6) when
you had embedded your own partially costumized answer dialogs with the
possibility to set the exact loc of the dialog, like we can do with the
If the necessity arises of course I have to use an appropriate version
of the MC IDE.
I would very much like a new MC IDE standalone builder with the
simplicity of the earlier MC IDE versions.
1) Do you build standalones with the MC IDE at all (either because you're
using an older version of MC or because you made your own standalone
There must be a way to achieve this, Klaus Major had been working on it,
but the difficulties he encountered apparently were too great and his
time budget he could allot to the task were insufficient.
When Revolution had been launched as a separate product; Kevin Miller
had promised that MC compatibility would be fully preserved. I see this
new structure of the Livecode standalone builder as a definite step away
from this promise. Kevin himself should have supplied us with the means
to program a new MC IDE standalone builder.
I hope there can be a cooperative enterprise of MC IDE users to
eventually produce a MC standalone builder.
I suppose, Richard Gaskin has found solutions to all this? Would it be
possible that he could share his version of a standalone builder - or
offer it as a starting point for a new MC version?
As I already have stated, I do not prefer the Livecode IDE. There quite
a number of reasons, which would take long to elaborate.
I am rather forced sometimes to use the Livecode standalone builder in
the temporary absence of a MC version.
2) Do you build standalones with the LiveCode IDE? If so, is it
can't with the MC IDE or because you prefer the LiveCode IDE? If you
it, then why do you prefer it?
3) What percent of your projects are to be deployed to the web plugin?
At present none.
At present none, too. I haven't bought any of the mobile add-ons for two
4) What percent of your projects are to be deployed to a mobile device?
- they are still in a initial phase of development, and
- the changed pricing and licensing conditions indeed do not appeal to me.
As a commercial license holder until 2013 - a license I bought out of
solidarity with RunRev, prompted by a cry for financial support some of
us did receive some time ago - I have just had a short discussion with
Heather and Kevin about the pricing and licensing terms for mobile
add-ons. I am still not quite clear about the terms and I have to
continue this discussion, but I see for instance that the licensing
period is determined solely by RunRev ("until the next paid update"),
which could be considerably shorter than a year. I would appreciate a
licensing period of at least one year or - if there is no paid update
within that year - until the the next paid update.
What is more, I cannot find information about how much updates woukl
cost - usually update prices have been considerably less than the full
price for a version. And there seems to be no possibility to get a trial
version of a mobile add-on
------------ END POLL -----------
Thanks for your answers! It will help drive the direction of the IDE...
metacard mailing list