To help those developers whose applications often break on recompilation with a new release I have a suggestion for RS:
Offer an install option that deploys each quarterly release as several separately versioned components. The modules could be: 1) RB IDE 2) RB dynamic library frameworks covering GUI controls and non GUI objects/functions 3) The Compiler dynamic library Each module would be installed in folders in such a way that ( subject to documented dependencies ) different versions of 1) 2) and 3) could be chosen. For example the latest release of the IDE could be set up to use a slightly older version of 2) or 3) for stability. Why would this be useful? Lets imagine that a release provides some useful enhancements to the IDE but for some developers breaks their code due to bugs in the frameworks. Those developers could opt to use the latest IDE but use the older releases of the frameworks and compiler, and only upgrade to later versions when they are adequately "fixed". Maybe the frameworks could be split up further - such as providing a separate frameword library for all those language features that are very rarely changed. The bottom line is to give us a way of benefiting WHERE POSSIBLE from each quarterly release while providing some insurance for newer bugs introduced in RB that break our existing applications. On 29/10/06 23:32, "Daniel L. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1) Stability ( I write a lot in Java using four different developer >> tools depending on the application I'm writing and the team I'm writing >> it with. None of them has stability issues, and only one has memory >> handling issues, requiring it to be restarted once every 10 days or so >> ). RB seems to have a lot less of it recently. > > I've been using only the Windows version for a few months, and just updated > my Mac license. I've got some serious work to do in some cross platform > projects, and I prefer being able to edit on the same machine to remote > debugging, as cool as remote debugging is. > > Any way, I hate to say it, but RB2006r4 for Windows seems a lot faster and > more stable than the Mac version. Admittedly I'm on a G5, not a Core Duo, > but a G5 is nothing to sneeze at. > > I seem to be getting a lot of "Unable to save -50" reports even though it > appears all changes were, in fact, saved. (Close and reopen the project and > the changes are there.) And I've had r4 go down 3 times in as many hours > today for reasons I do not know. I don't recall the last time r4 crashed on > my PC. > > It makes me a bit nervous and even though I prefer to edit/debug on the same > machine, I think I will be building the final binaries from the PC. > >> 2) Updates ( back in the 4/5.* days, you bought a license, and you >> would get updates for that license while there where any to be had. >> That ment that if a serious flaw was detected in f.ex. 5.5.1 >> RealSoftware would come out with 5.5.2 which fixed the flaw. Now, if >> you "buy in" at rb2006/1 and it's bugged, you get updates as long as >> your subscription is valid, but if all the updates happen to be bugged >> and your subscription ends, you basically have a broken product. ) > > That can happen with the traditional model to. I actually like the > subscription model. BUT...I really, really, really wish that at least one of > the updates each year would be dedicated to NOTHING but bug fixes and > stability. > > Daniel L. Taylor > Taylor Design > Computer Consulting & Software Development > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.taylor-design.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
