Hi Thomas, the List,
> Doing something productive instead of complaining :)
That was why I start the "Try to create a constructive list".
The problem is that RS have to give the market a Universal Binary version - say
RB 2006r2 - ; so they will have to add some new features, the XCode framework -
say RB 2006r3 - ...
Talking time frame, this will goes to:
REALbasic 2006r1: 2006-01-11
REALbasic 2006r2: 2006-04-11
REALbasic 2006r3: 2006-07-10
REALbasic 2006r4: 2006-10-08
dates are approx; I use the max gap (90 days) between two sub-versions (r1 to r2
and so on...)
That leaves us with REALbasic 2006r4 (from early July to early October 2006)
where RS Engineers can have time to make a special bug squash only release.
RS CEO can give us a reasonable idea of what we can get in 2006 in the way I
wrote in this message: a.k.a. a road map for 2006. The REAlbasic users know what
they will get for their money (for those who already update their plans) and the
people like me who didn't do already will update their plan if they are OK with
the roadmap. Of course, this means that the road map will be done as expressed.
When RS ann the new release shema, they talked about a 12 month update plan (6
month in 2005, then 12 months starting in 2006, etc.), it can be a good idea to
use one of the 4 yearly releases (one release every 90 days - or less) to make a
"mostly bug squash release", the best one to use is the r3. r4 as the last
release in the current plan have to be a special new features ;)
Geoff ?
BTW: I do not have special information from RS, I only read each [ANN] and I
have a brain to make assumptions (that can be wrong)...
HTH,
Emile
PS: I forget about the new Linker (thanks Chris L.). So... much work to do, so
few time to achive it...
PPS: using the Cocoa framework can add UB, so we have 1 version early to make
the bug squash / speed optimizations...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Doing something productive instead of complaining :)
From: "Thomas Tempelmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:03:14 +0100
On 2/19/06, Michael Krugman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I guess it's about time for us as a group to really let RB know
this is not acceptable, whether it is here on the list or in Feedback
or wherever.
There's another problem: RS has not enough manpower. They don't
like to admit it, but you can read it between lines that they're
understaffed. Many years ago Geoff actually offered me to work for
RS. While I felt honored it also became clear quite quickly that they
could not afford my price at that time (it was in the early 2000s when
I could make $120k net). And it's also not easy to find good
programmers. And then they might have to relocate to ... Austin!
So, lobbying doesn't help much if we can't offer a better perspective.
I will actually try to offer my help temporarily to RS at a rate that's
below my standards (some of you might remember my joke about
the compiler improvement feature request), and perhaps that'll have
some productive outcome. I hope to find out next week.
Another way might be to convince RS to shift their priorities. E.g,
it appears that, like most companies, RS thinks that they can only
sell new versions of they offer "new, great" features. But perhaps
they'll make a much better sale if they only improve code speed and
size in one version? Who knows? I don't know how to assess this,
but if someone has an idea...
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
