Of course, this whole point would be moot if RB classes, class
interfaces, windows, and modules were external files like in other
languages; then you could use pretty much any VC system you wanted
(they're already geared to text storage/retrieval/comparison); and
you could use BBEdit, WordPad/NotePad, or even XCode for editing your
source, if that's up your alley!
On Jan 2, 2007, at 10:24 PM, Brendan Murphy wrote:
[snip]
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.
I don't know how long you have been using RB, but RS already once
attempted to roll their own version control system. I remember
having discussions on this list and with Geoff about their
previous version control system. And you are right to state it
would be a waste of their time to write their own version control
system. So they pulled their version control from RB and started
working on a new direction. At that time I suggested that they
create a version control system similar to CodeWarrior's where
they provide the front end and an API that third party developers
could hook into and bridge the gap between the source code control
system and RB. But as time passed, something happened internally
at RS and they decided to do this version file format. In my
opinion, this was a mistake and a waste of resources on their
part. They should have stuck with the original CodeWarrior like
model. So unless RS has some plans to REALLY kick it up a notch,
we are stuck with an inferior version control system. Now that
they got UB support out of the way and the IDE is stable, they
really need to concentrate on features that make sense and are not
just band-aid features to just get by. RS is really hurting
themselves in the corporate market because they are not properly
interfacing with the development systems out there. Perhaps it is
a lack of experience on there part in that they don't realize what
developers need to interface with. We are at a critical juncture
with RB in that they now have the opportunity to break out of the
niche market they are in and really put to shame all other
development systems. I have been developing software for twenty
years and have always imagined a dream system for developing
software and RB is the one system that comes closet to that dream.
With a few well thought out features, RB could really kick butt in
the market place. Unlike java which is more hype than substance,
RB has real proven potential. Currently RB is like a three legged
dog, it gets around just fine, but that fourth leg sure would be
handy if you know what I mean.
So RS, what is your vision for RB? Do you want to break into the
corporate world? Any features you develop for corporate market are
going to be like heaven to the individual developer like a proper
interface to source code control systems.
Of course, developing for a corporate market implies corporate
pricing... which would put it way out of reach of hobbyist
programmers. The low initial price compared to other tools like VB 6
Enterprise Edition is - I believe - what helped RS penetrate the
market (that, and the fact that it was for the Mac!)
Though, personally, if they increased the QC to match, with more
focus on fixing bugs, then I'd probably still save up to get it.
Naturally, my frustration would be similarly increased if I paid a
lot more, and there were still show-stopping bugs!
Just my 1/50th of a dollar.
_______________________________________________
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>
