On 3/31/11 9:10 AM, Shari wrote:
This is the point, it seemed to have had zero priority for anyone on
this list!


Actually, some of us don't like to ask for things when we know that
people are donating their time. We simply silently wait for things.

Hopefully we can all feel comfortable speaking up going forward. A lot of long-time MC users have moved to LC IDE, so without input here there's no way for Klaus or Ken to gauge what's needed.

We're all family here - feel free to speak your mind on anything you need or even want from the IDE.

And feel free to propose anything you want to contribute yourself - it's open for that reason, to hopefully capture some of the collective talent and motivation from its users.

And if your ideas are too weird (as many of mine have been), you're free to modify the IDE however you need (which is how I've been scratching my weirder itches <g>).


Now I am afraid to move forward because I keep seeing discussions on the
Rev list about bugs in things that have been solid for a decade. I don't
know if the whole Rev code was rewritten and is now not as solid as
before, or if the discussions refer to special versions for iOs and so
forth only. If you don't catch the beginning and jump into the middle,
it's a bit distressing to see bug after bug listed.

I would take those with a grain of salt. Well, some of them anyway. Best to look at each reported issue on a case-by-case basis and determine its merit and applicability to your work accordingly.

As one of the few people who has a habit of reading every outstanding engine bug report at least twice a year (I'm not just OCD, but so much of my job depends on knowing the ins and outs of the engine), I can safely describe a sadly large percentage of the stuff in the RQCC as merde: duplicates, misunderstood features, RTFM, unreproducible bizarre edge cases that have affected no one else nor even the original reporter since, issues long since addressed, and issues long since irrelevant (you'd be surprised how many things are in there for Mac Classic, which even Apple stopped supporting long ago).

I've tried in many cases to prompt the OP to reconfirm the issue in a recent engine version and close or comment accordingly, but only in a few cases has this yielded any response. Most of them sit there a long time, with my being unable to close them, the engine team unsure if they need to be closed, and the OP unresponsive.

Sure, software always has a certain number of errors per KLOC, and something as complex as LC has a good many legitimate bug reports against it.

But most of the show-stoppers have been addressed, so before random FUD on the list gets you down I would encourage you to take a good look at the specifics and determine how such an issue will actually affect what you do.

For myself, with dozens of products in development here, the number of bugs that are actually holding up any of our feature development is fewer than a dozen, and in every case I have plenty of other features to add in the meantime while I wait for those fixes.


I know the standalone issue will revisit me soon as I'm working on
something actively right now. I dread that moment.

If you can use LC for building standalones until after I'm back from the RevLive conference, I'll have you covered in MC on that.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv

_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Reply via email to