All very good points - I would emphasise that for precompiled libraries I would want them to be in the relevant OS format - ie DLL , dylib etc. Do we really need a new precompiled library format specific to RB ?. The ability to create RB plugins, DLLs and dylibs would increast the range of projects for which RB could be used considerably.
I also second the method folder idea. This would be very useful for classes that have a huge amount of them. It seems to me that RS is slowly making RB version control friendly - but I think it would be a waste of RS resources to write in their own VC features. Far better to just add the ability to provide hooks for one of the existing VC systems. On 3/1/07 01:13, "Brendan Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is my list of nuts and bolts features... > > - Libraries (source code and precompiled). > - Plugins per project. > - Creating plugins in RB. > - Folders in the IDE to help organize our methods. > - Team development features (i.e., proper version control). > > All these features would fundamentally change how we work. Out of > that list I would choose libraries as the number one feature to be > implemented. Libraries will have a huge impact on how we work with > RB and distribute code. If we had precompiled RB libraries a whole > new market of third party development would open up in the RB > community. _______________________________________________ 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>
