On Sep 26, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Mike Woodworth wrote:
On Sep 26, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Joseph Nastasi wrote:
On Sep 26, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Norman Palardy wrote:
But I'd take stable, relatively bug free runtimes first
A-friggin'-men!
while i agree with this on principle... and far more now than i did
before the rapid release cycle... most of the bugs i've found can
with work be worked around. no matter what, i hit a point where i
can't speed up my rb app any more, short of jumping into RB.
i bet there are as many apps not getting written in RB because of
speed as there are because of bugs. certainly when you factor in
people not using RB because of a perception of it's slowness. I
think it's going to take a lot of work to change this perception...
it's something I fight against tooth and nail.
I have no metric to base an opinion on, only my experience, but the
perceived slowness likely is on par with perceived bugginess.
For the things I'm doing speed is less of a concern as most time is
spent waiting for user input than most anything.
I've never had to skip a release because of slowness but I have had
to skip using certain releases because of bugs in the frameworks and
forgo using any of the new features those releases had.
So even if there had been speed improvements in a new releases, I'd
not see them because of the bugs that affect me and mean I can't use
the release.
Undoubtedly, both issues are important for different audiences for
different reasons.
_______________________________________________
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>
