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.

Thanks!

Ken

------------ 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 development,
and what percent do you use the LiveCode IDE?

About 90 percent MC IDE, that makes a maximum of 10 percent for Livecode.


2) If you use the LiveCode IDE at all, what do you use it for, and why?

For special features not yet available in the MC IDE, e.g. manually resetting the points of a polygon.


Deployment
==========
I'm aware that the current standalone builder in the MC IDE doesn't work
with the latest engines. With that in mind:

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.

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 Metacard dialogs.-


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
builder)?

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.

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?


2) Do you build standalones with the LiveCode IDE? If so, is it because you can't with the MC IDE or because you prefer the LiveCode IDE? If you prefer
it, then why do you prefer it?

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.


3) What percent of your projects are to be deployed to the web plugin?

At present none.


4) What percent of your projects are to be deployed to a mobile device?

At present none, too. I haven't bought any of the mobile add-ons for two reasons:

- 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
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Reply via email to