Re: Windows 64 bit LC Still slow

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

I think we can eliminate the BITNESS (stupid spell correct)

Bob S


> On Apr 14, 2021, at 12:54 , Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
>  I think we can eliminate the witness as a possible cause


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Windows 64 bit LC Still slow

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

32 bit programs running under a 64 bit OS have to run through an “emulator” 
(that is probably not the right term for it). I was simply saying that I think 
we can eliminate the witness as a possible cause for why Windows standalone and 
the IDE run so much slower than on MacOS or Linux. 

Bob S


> On Apr 14, 2021, at 12:15 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Just an update to a prior thread (which I cannot seem to find), LC for 
> Windows 64 bit version is just as slow at accessing databases (and I will 
> assume saving files) as the 32 bit version. I had previously brain farted and 
> tested with the 32 bit version, but as far as I can tell there is not 
> improvement in performance with 64 bit. 
> 
> Bob S
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Windows 64 bit LC Still slow

[matthias rebbe via use-livecode]

Should 64-bit programs be faster?

I thought the advantage of 64bit programs is that they can access more memory 
(more than 3GB) and that they can perform 64-bit register operations, whatever 
that is. ;)




Matthias Rebbe
-
Matthias Rebbe
Life Is Too Short For Boring Code

> Am 14.04.2021 um 21:15 schrieb Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
> :
> 
> Just an update to a prior thread (which I cannot seem to find), LC for 
> Windows 64 bit version is just as slow at accessing databases (and I will 
> assume saving files) as the 32 bit version. I had previously brain farted and 
> tested with the 32 bit version, but as far as I can tell there is not 
> improvement in performance with 64 bit. 
> 
> Bob S
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Windows 64 bit LC Still slow

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

Just an update to a prior thread (which I cannot seem to find), LC for Windows 
64 bit version is just as slow at accessing databases (and I will assume saving 
files) as the 32 bit version. I had previously brain farted and tested with the 
32 bit version, but as far as I can tell there is not improvement in 
performance with 64 bit. 

Bob S


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: How do you handle 32/64 bit Windows standalones?

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

I create both. We still have users on older machines that need 32-bit.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On April 6, 2021 4:39:42 AM Tiemo via use-livecode 
 wrote:



Hello,



When creating a Windows standalone, are you still creating the 32Bit
standalone or only anymore 64 Bit Versions of your products?

I know, that Microsoft doesn't delivers 32 Bit Versions anymore since 2020,
but I didn't found statistics about the current shares of 32/64 Bit Windows
Systems out there (in Germany).



Are there any caveats against going on with 32 Bit versions for some more
years?



How do you handle this today?







___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

AW: How do you handle 32/64 bit Windows standalones?

[Tiemo via use-livecode]

Thanks for your 2 cents!

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: use-livecode  Im Auftrag von Andre 
Garzia via use-livecode
Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. April 2021 15:30
An: How to use LiveCode 
Cc: Andre Garzia 
Betreff: Re: How do you handle 32/64 bit Windows standalones?

Be aware that windows machines which are running “Windows on ARM” such as the 
gorgeous Surface Pro X can only run either ARM64 windows apps (which we can’t 
build with LC) or 32bits x86 windows apps, which we can build. If you want to 
reach maximum compatibility with windows machines everywhere, building for 
32bits is the safest bet.

> On 6 Apr 2021, at 10:36, Tiemo via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> 
> When creating a Windows standalone, are you still creating the 32Bit 
> standalone or only anymore 64 Bit Versions of your products?
> 
> I know, that Microsoft doesn't delivers 32 Bit Versions anymore since 
> 2020, but I didn't found statistics about the current shares of 32/64 
> Bit Windows Systems out there (in Germany).
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any caveats against going on with 32 Bit versions for some 
> more years?
> 
> 
> 
> How do you handle this today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: How do you handle 32/64 bit Windows standalones?

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

Be aware that windows machines which are running “Windows on ARM” such as the 
gorgeous Surface Pro X can only run either ARM64 windows apps (which we can’t 
build with LC) or 32bits x86 windows apps, which we can build. If you want to 
reach maximum compatibility with windows machines everywhere, building for 
32bits is the safest bet.

> On 6 Apr 2021, at 10:36, Tiemo via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> 
> When creating a Windows standalone, are you still creating the 32Bit
> standalone or only anymore 64 Bit Versions of your products?
> 
> I know, that Microsoft doesn't delivers 32 Bit Versions anymore since 2020,
> but I didn't found statistics about the current shares of 32/64 Bit Windows
> Systems out there (in Germany).
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any caveats against going on with 32 Bit versions for some more
> years? 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you handle this today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: How do you handle 32/64 bit Windows standalones?

[Richmond via use-livecode]

I provide both: here have a look: 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2vgc1ei088hdqay/AAC8ac27eZuiI_BsWFlFQQjYa?dl=0


Richmond.

On 6.04.21 12:36, Tiemo via use-livecode wrote:

Hello,

  


When creating a Windows standalone, are you still creating the 32Bit
standalone or only anymore 64 Bit Versions of your products?

I know, that Microsoft doesn't delivers 32 Bit Versions anymore since 2020,
but I didn't found statistics about the current shares of 32/64 Bit Windows
Systems out there (in Germany).

  


Are there any caveats against going on with 32 Bit versions for some more
years?

  


How do you handle this today?

  

  

  


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: How do you handle 32/64 bit Windows standalones?

[matthias rebbe via use-livecode]

Windows 8 was available as 32 and 64 bit. The support for that OS by Microsoft 
ends 23.01.2023.

Windows 10 also was (and maybe still is) available as 32bit and 64 bit. If i 
recall it correctly starting with Win10 2004 only 64bit OEM versions 
werereleased.

As long as there might be users who have a 32bit version of Windows running and 
as long as LC allows to create 32bit Windows standalones, i will create 32bit 
Windows standalones.

Matthias


-
Matthias Rebbe
Life Is Too Short For Boring Code

> Am 06.04.2021 um 11:36 schrieb Tiemo via use-livecode 
> :
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 
> 
> When creating a Windows standalone, are you still creating the 32Bit
> standalone or only anymore 64 Bit Versions of your products?
> 
> I know, that Microsoft doesn't delivers 32 Bit Versions anymore since 2020,
> but I didn't found statistics about the current shares of 32/64 Bit Windows
> Systems out there (in Germany).
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any caveats against going on with 32 Bit versions for some more
> years? 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you handle this today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

How do you handle 32/64 bit Windows standalones?

[Tiemo via use-livecode]

Hello,

 

When creating a Windows standalone, are you still creating the 32Bit
standalone or only anymore 64 Bit Versions of your products?

I know, that Microsoft doesn't delivers 32 Bit Versions anymore since 2020,
but I didn't found statistics about the current shares of 32/64 Bit Windows
Systems out there (in Germany).

 

Are there any caveats against going on with 32 Bit versions for some more
years? 

 

How do you handle this today?

 

 

 

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Determine if Windows engine is 32-bit or 64-bit?

[Trevor DeVore via use-livecode]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:47 AM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> On 2019-10-07 15:41, Trevor DeVore via use-livecode wrote:
> > With LiveCode 9.5 one can deploy 32-bit or 64bit Windows applications.
> > While LiveCode Builder has an `architecture` function that can be used
> > to
> > detect 64-bit, LiveCode Script does not. Does anybody have a function
> > for
> > determine 64-bit vs. 32-bit architecture in LCS?
>
> I think 'the processor' does what you want - well it does the same thing
> as
> 'the architecture' in LCB at least (it returns x86, x86_64, arm64, arm
> or js
> depending on how the engine was compiled).
>

Hmm, looks like the docs need updating. The docs for the `processor` say it
returns the system's CPU chip which is different than how the engine was
compiled. I see there is already a Bug report for it:

https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=22164

-- 
Trevor DeVore
ScreenSteps
www.screensteps.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Determine if Windows engine is 32-bit or 64-bit?

[Trevor DeVore via use-livecode]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 9:47 AM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> On 2019-10-07 15:41, Trevor DeVore via use-livecode wrote:
> > With LiveCode 9.5 one can deploy 32-bit or 64bit Windows applications.
> > While LiveCode Builder has an `architecture` function that can be used
> > to
> > detect 64-bit, LiveCode Script does not. Does anybody have a function
> > for
> > determine 64-bit vs. 32-bit architecture in LCS?
>
> I think 'the processor' does what you want - well it does the same thing
> as
> 'the architecture' in LCB at least (it returns x86, x86_64, arm64, arm
> or js
> depending on how the engine was compiled).
>

Right you are. I think I'll add a "related" entry to `platform` in the docs
that points to `processor`.

Thanks!

-- 
Trevor DeVore
ScreenSteps
www.screensteps.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Determine if Windows engine is 32-bit or 64-bit?

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2019-10-07 15:41, Trevor DeVore via use-livecode wrote:

With LiveCode 9.5 one can deploy 32-bit or 64bit Windows applications.
While LiveCode Builder has an `architecture` function that can be used 
to
detect 64-bit, LiveCode Script does not. Does anybody have a function 
for

determine 64-bit vs. 32-bit architecture in LCS?


I think 'the processor' does what you want - well it does the same thing 
as
'the architecture' in LCB at least (it returns x86, x86_64, arm64, arm 
or js

depending on how the engine was compiled).

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Determine if Windows engine is 32-bit or 64-bit?

[Trevor DeVore via use-livecode]

With LiveCode 9.5 one can deploy 32-bit or 64bit Windows applications.
While LiveCode Builder has an `architecture` function that can be used to
detect 64-bit, LiveCode Script does not. Does anybody have a function for
determine 64-bit vs. 32-bit architecture in LCS?

-- 
Trevor DeVore
ScreenSteps
www.screensteps.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android 64-bit?

[Tom Glod via use-livecode]

ok thanks Colin  that clears up the most confusing part for me.
...i'll find out the rest in sept when i'm trying to submit using 9.0x :)


On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:35 PM Colin Holgate via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> When you submit apps to Google Play you have some amount of control over
> what versions are able to see that app. At this point it’s a few years
> since I had to deal with that, but hopefully you will have an option to say
> that it’s compatible with say Android 4-8. That rules out 9, and works
> around the 64 bit requirements.
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Tom Glod via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > Welli thought it was clear ..but now i'm more confused than ever
> on
> > this subject :P
> >
> > It will not be possible to post a *new* app to the playstore starting
> > august 1 without using livecode 9.5 to build it?
> >
> > Is 9.5 stable slated to be out anytime soon?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:22 PM Colin Holgate via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have been following this with regard to Adobe AIR, and it’s nice that
> >> they get an extension. I use Unity too, and that has a longer
> extension. I
> >> suspect it’s in proportion to the number of apps submitted with those
> >> tools. I have read figures of 10% of apps are AIR and 50% of games are
> >> Unity. That’s a lot of users to upset.
> >>
> >> LiveCode isn’t quite at the 10 or 50 percent level yet, so no special
> >> case. But one thing to note is that Android 9 is only at 10% of devices,
> >> which is high enough for Google to brag about, but if you have to set
> your
> >> APK to only work on Android 8 or earlier, you still get 90% of the
> users.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode <
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From the android-developers googleblog:
> >>>
> >>> The 64-bit requirement: what it means for developers
> >>> Starting August 1, 2019:
> >>>
> >>> All new apps and app updates that include native code are required to
> >> provide 64-bit versions in addition to 32-bit versions when publishing
> to
> >> Google Play.
> >>> Extensions: Google Play will continue to accept 32-bit only updates to
> >> existing games that use the following SDKs:
> >>> Corona Labs SDK - until August 2020
> >>> Adobe Air software and the AIR SDK - until August 2020
> >>> Unity 5.6.7 or older - until August 2021
> >>> Starting August 1, 2021:
> >>> Google Play will stop serving apps without 64-bit versions on 64-bit
> >> capable devices, meaning they will no longer be available in the Play
> Store
> >> on those devices.
> >>> This will include games built with Unity 5.6.x or older.
> >>> The requirement does not apply to:
> >>> APKs or app bundles explicitly targeting Wear OS or Android TV, which
> >> are form factors that do not currently support 64-bit code.
> >>> APKs or app bundles that are not distributed to devices running Android
> >> 9 Pie or later.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ralph DiMola
> >>> IT Director
> >>> Evergreen Information Services
> >>> rdim...@evergreeninfo.net
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On
> >> Behalf Of Dan Friedman via use-livecode
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 6:04 PM
> >>> To: How to use LiveCode
> >>> Cc: Dan Friedman; Dar Scott Consulting
> >>> Subject: Re: Android 64-bit?
> >>>
> >>> Dar,
> >>>
> >>> https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit
> >> states, "Starting August 1, 2019, your apps published on Google Play
> will
> >> need to support 64-bit architectures."
> >>>
> >>> So, no new or updated apps can be posted to Google made by LiveCode
> >> after August 1?   That can't be right!   Perhaps someone at LC will have
> >> some better news?
> >>>
> >>> -Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7/15/19, 2:31 PM, "use-livecode on behalf of Dar Scott Consulting
> >> via use-livecode"  >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com&g

Re: Android 64-bit?

[Colin Holgate via use-livecode]

When you submit apps to Google Play you have some amount of control over what 
versions are able to see that app. At this point it’s a few years since I had 
to deal with that, but hopefully you will have an option to say that it’s 
compatible with say Android 4-8. That rules out 9, and works around the 64 bit 
requirements.


> On Jul 15, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Tom Glod via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Welli thought it was clear ..but now i'm more confused than ever on
> this subject :P
> 
> It will not be possible to post a *new* app to the playstore starting
> august 1 without using livecode 9.5 to build it?
> 
> Is 9.5 stable slated to be out anytime soon?
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:22 PM Colin Holgate via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
>> I have been following this with regard to Adobe AIR, and it’s nice that
>> they get an extension. I use Unity too, and that has a longer extension. I
>> suspect it’s in proportion to the number of apps submitted with those
>> tools. I have read figures of 10% of apps are AIR and 50% of games are
>> Unity. That’s a lot of users to upset.
>> 
>> LiveCode isn’t quite at the 10 or 50 percent level yet, so no special
>> case. But one thing to note is that Android 9 is only at 10% of devices,
>> which is high enough for Google to brag about, but if you have to set your
>> APK to only work on Android 8 or earlier, you still get 90% of the users.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode <
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> From the android-developers googleblog:
>>> 
>>> The 64-bit requirement: what it means for developers
>>> Starting August 1, 2019:
>>> 
>>> All new apps and app updates that include native code are required to
>> provide 64-bit versions in addition to 32-bit versions when publishing to
>> Google Play.
>>> Extensions: Google Play will continue to accept 32-bit only updates to
>> existing games that use the following SDKs:
>>> Corona Labs SDK - until August 2020
>>> Adobe Air software and the AIR SDK - until August 2020
>>> Unity 5.6.7 or older - until August 2021
>>> Starting August 1, 2021:
>>> Google Play will stop serving apps without 64-bit versions on 64-bit
>> capable devices, meaning they will no longer be available in the Play Store
>> on those devices.
>>> This will include games built with Unity 5.6.x or older.
>>> The requirement does not apply to:
>>> APKs or app bundles explicitly targeting Wear OS or Android TV, which
>> are form factors that do not currently support 64-bit code.
>>> APKs or app bundles that are not distributed to devices running Android
>> 9 Pie or later.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ralph DiMola
>>> IT Director
>>> Evergreen Information Services
>>> rdim...@evergreeninfo.net
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On
>> Behalf Of Dan Friedman via use-livecode
>>> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 6:04 PM
>>> To: How to use LiveCode
>>> Cc: Dan Friedman; Dar Scott Consulting
>>> Subject: Re: Android 64-bit?
>>> 
>>> Dar,
>>> 
>>> https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit
>> states, "Starting August 1, 2019, your apps published on Google Play will
>> need to support 64-bit architectures."
>>> 
>>> So, no new or updated apps can be posted to Google made by LiveCode
>> after August 1?   That can't be right!   Perhaps someone at LC will have
>> some better news?
>>> 
>>> -Dan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/15/19, 2:31 PM, "use-livecode on behalf of Dar Scott Consulting
>> via use-livecode" > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>   Wow!
>>> 
>>>   Perhaps the constraint for August 1 is that all NEW apps and all
>> UPDATES need to include 64-bit. Maybe, they will still serve your apps.
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Dan Friedman via use-livecode <
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Greetings!   I got some notices from Google (android) that my apps need
>> to be updated to 64-bit by August 1, 2019.   Does LiveCode generate 64-bit
>> Android apps?  If so, can I do that with Indy 9.0.4?  If so, what versions
>> of Android Studio and Android SDKs do I need to install?   Any guidance
>> will be greatly appreci

Re: Android 64-bit?

[Tom Glod via use-livecode]

Welli thought it was clear ..but now i'm more confused than ever on
this subject :P

It will not be possible to post a *new* app to the playstore starting
august 1 without using livecode 9.5 to build it?

Is 9.5 stable slated to be out anytime soon?



On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:22 PM Colin Holgate via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> I have been following this with regard to Adobe AIR, and it’s nice that
> they get an extension. I use Unity too, and that has a longer extension. I
> suspect it’s in proportion to the number of apps submitted with those
> tools. I have read figures of 10% of apps are AIR and 50% of games are
> Unity. That’s a lot of users to upset.
>
> LiveCode isn’t quite at the 10 or 50 percent level yet, so no special
> case. But one thing to note is that Android 9 is only at 10% of devices,
> which is high enough for Google to brag about, but if you have to set your
> APK to only work on Android 8 or earlier, you still get 90% of the users.
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > From the android-developers googleblog:
> >
> > The 64-bit requirement: what it means for developers
> > Starting August 1, 2019:
> >
> > All new apps and app updates that include native code are required to
> provide 64-bit versions in addition to 32-bit versions when publishing to
> Google Play.
> > Extensions: Google Play will continue to accept 32-bit only updates to
> existing games that use the following SDKs:
> > Corona Labs SDK - until August 2020
> > Adobe Air software and the AIR SDK - until August 2020
> > Unity 5.6.7 or older - until August 2021
> > Starting August 1, 2021:
> > Google Play will stop serving apps without 64-bit versions on 64-bit
> capable devices, meaning they will no longer be available in the Play Store
> on those devices.
> > This will include games built with Unity 5.6.x or older.
> > The requirement does not apply to:
> > APKs or app bundles explicitly targeting Wear OS or Android TV, which
> are form factors that do not currently support 64-bit code.
> > APKs or app bundles that are not distributed to devices running Android
> 9 Pie or later.
> >
> >
> > Ralph DiMola
> > IT Director
> > Evergreen Information Services
> > rdim...@evergreeninfo.net
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On
> Behalf Of Dan Friedman via use-livecode
> > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 6:04 PM
> > To: How to use LiveCode
> > Cc: Dan Friedman; Dar Scott Consulting
> > Subject: Re: Android 64-bit?
> >
> > Dar,
> >
> > https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit
> states, "Starting August 1, 2019, your apps published on Google Play will
> need to support 64-bit architectures."
> >
> > So, no new or updated apps can be posted to Google made by LiveCode
> after August 1?   That can't be right!   Perhaps someone at LC will have
> some better news?
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> >
> > On 7/15/19, 2:31 PM, "use-livecode on behalf of Dar Scott Consulting
> via use-livecode"  use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> >Wow!
> >
> >Perhaps the constraint for August 1 is that all NEW apps and all
> UPDATES need to include 64-bit. Maybe, they will still serve your apps.
> >
> >> On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Dan Friedman via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Greetings!   I got some notices from Google (android) that my apps need
> to be updated to 64-bit by August 1, 2019.   Does LiveCode generate 64-bit
> Android apps?  If so, can I do that with Indy 9.0.4?  If so, what versions
> of Android Studio and Android SDKs do I need to install?   Any guidance
> will be greatly appreciated and surely help keep my hair in my head.
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >>
> >> ___
> >> use-livecode mailing list
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> >
> >
> >___
> >use-livecode mailing list
> >use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> >Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> >http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/us

RE: Android 64-bit?

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

Hit send too quick. The means that 32 bit apps will be served to 64 bit devices 
until 2021

Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android 64-bit?

[Colin Holgate via use-livecode]

I have been following this with regard to Adobe AIR, and it’s nice that they 
get an extension. I use Unity too, and that has a longer extension. I suspect 
it’s in proportion to the number of apps submitted with those tools. I have 
read figures of 10% of apps are AIR and 50% of games are Unity. That’s a lot of 
users to upset.

LiveCode isn’t quite at the 10 or 50 percent level yet, so no special case. But 
one thing to note is that Android 9 is only at 10% of devices, which is high 
enough for Google to brag about, but if you have to set your APK to only work 
on Android 8 or earlier, you still get 90% of the users.


> On Jul 15, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> From the android-developers googleblog:
> 
> The 64-bit requirement: what it means for developers
> Starting August 1, 2019:
> 
> All new apps and app updates that include native code are required to provide 
> 64-bit versions in addition to 32-bit versions when publishing to Google Play.
> Extensions: Google Play will continue to accept 32-bit only updates to 
> existing games that use the following SDKs:
> Corona Labs SDK - until August 2020
> Adobe Air software and the AIR SDK - until August 2020
> Unity 5.6.7 or older - until August 2021
> Starting August 1, 2021:
> Google Play will stop serving apps without 64-bit versions on 64-bit capable 
> devices, meaning they will no longer be available in the Play Store on those 
> devices.
> This will include games built with Unity 5.6.x or older.
> The requirement does not apply to:
> APKs or app bundles explicitly targeting Wear OS or Android TV, which are 
> form factors that do not currently support 64-bit code.
> APKs or app bundles that are not distributed to devices running Android 9 Pie 
> or later.
> 
> 
> Ralph DiMola
> IT Director
> Evergreen Information Services
> rdim...@evergreeninfo.net
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf 
> Of Dan Friedman via use-livecode
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 6:04 PM
> To: How to use LiveCode
> Cc: Dan Friedman; Dar Scott Consulting
> Subject: Re: Android 64-bit?
> 
> Dar,
> 
> https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit 
> states, "Starting August 1, 2019, your apps published on Google Play will 
> need to support 64-bit architectures."
> 
> So, no new or updated apps can be posted to Google made by LiveCode after 
> August 1?   That can't be right!   Perhaps someone at LC will have some 
> better news?
> 
> -Dan
> 
> 
> On 7/15/19, 2:31 PM, "use-livecode on behalf of Dar Scott Consulting via 
> use-livecode"  use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
>Wow!  
> 
>Perhaps the constraint for August 1 is that all NEW apps and all UPDATES 
> need to include 64-bit. Maybe, they will still serve your apps.
> 
>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Dan Friedman via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Greetings!   I got some notices from Google (android) that my apps need to 
>> be updated to 64-bit by August 1, 2019.   Does LiveCode generate 64-bit 
>> Android apps?  If so, can I do that with Indy 9.0.4?  If so, what versions 
>> of Android Studio and Android SDKs do I need to install?   Any guidance will 
>> be greatly appreciated and surely help keep my hair in my head.
>> 
>> -Dan
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
>___
>use-livecode mailing list
>use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
> subscription preferences:
>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: Android 64-bit?

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

From the android-developers googleblog:

The 64-bit requirement: what it means for developers
Starting August 1, 2019:

All new apps and app updates that include native code are required to provide 
64-bit versions in addition to 32-bit versions when publishing to Google Play.
Extensions: Google Play will continue to accept 32-bit only updates to existing 
games that use the following SDKs:
Corona Labs SDK - until August 2020
Adobe Air software and the AIR SDK - until August 2020
Unity 5.6.7 or older - until August 2021
Starting August 1, 2021:
Google Play will stop serving apps without 64-bit versions on 64-bit capable 
devices, meaning they will no longer be available in the Play Store on those 
devices.
This will include games built with Unity 5.6.x or older.
The requirement does not apply to:
APKs or app bundles explicitly targeting Wear OS or Android TV, which are form 
factors that do not currently support 64-bit code.
APKs or app bundles that are not distributed to devices running Android 9 Pie 
or later.


Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net

-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of 
Dan Friedman via use-livecode
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 6:04 PM
To: How to use LiveCode
Cc: Dan Friedman; Dar Scott Consulting
Subject: Re: Android 64-bit?

Dar,

https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit states, 
"Starting August 1, 2019, your apps published on Google Play will need to 
support 64-bit architectures."

So, no new or updated apps can be posted to Google made by LiveCode after 
August 1?   That can't be right!   Perhaps someone at LC will have some better 
news?

-Dan
 

On 7/15/19, 2:31 PM, "use-livecode on behalf of Dar Scott Consulting via 
use-livecode"  wrote:

Wow!  

Perhaps the constraint for August 1 is that all NEW apps and all UPDATES 
need to include 64-bit. Maybe, they will still serve your apps.

> On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Dan Friedman via use-livecode 
 wrote:
> 
> Greetings!   I got some notices from Google (android) that my apps need 
to be updated to 64-bit by August 1, 2019.   Does LiveCode generate 64-bit 
Android apps?  If so, can I do that with Indy 9.0.4?  If so, what versions of 
Android Studio and Android SDKs do I need to install?   Any guidance will be 
greatly appreciated and surely help keep my hair in my head.
> 
> -Dan
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android 64-bit?

[Dan Friedman via use-livecode]

Dar,

https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit states, 
"Starting August 1, 2019, your apps published on Google Play will need to 
support 64-bit architectures."

So, no new or updated apps can be posted to Google made by LiveCode after 
August 1?   That can't be right!   Perhaps someone at LC will have some better 
news?

-Dan
 

On 7/15/19, 2:31 PM, "use-livecode on behalf of Dar Scott Consulting via 
use-livecode"  wrote:

Wow!  

Perhaps the constraint for August 1 is that all NEW apps and all UPDATES 
need to include 64-bit. Maybe, they will still serve your apps.

> On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Dan Friedman via use-livecode 
 wrote:
> 
> Greetings!   I got some notices from Google (android) that my apps need 
to be updated to 64-bit by August 1, 2019.   Does LiveCode generate 64-bit 
Android apps?  If so, can I do that with Indy 9.0.4?  If so, what versions of 
Android Studio and Android SDKs do I need to install?   Any guidance will be 
greatly appreciated and surely help keep my hair in my head.
> 
> -Dan
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android 64-bit?

[Dar Scott Consulting via use-livecode]

Wow!  

Perhaps the constraint for August 1 is that all NEW apps and all UPDATES need 
to include 64-bit. Maybe, they will still serve your apps.

> On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Dan Friedman via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Greetings!   I got some notices from Google (android) that my apps need to be 
> updated to 64-bit by August 1, 2019.   Does LiveCode generate 64-bit Android 
> apps?  If so, can I do that with Indy 9.0.4?  If so, what versions of Android 
> Studio and Android SDKs do I need to install?   Any guidance will be greatly 
> appreciated and surely help keep my hair in my head.
> 
> -Dan
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android 64-bit?

[JJS via use-livecode]

Hi, with LC950DP1 you can, but beware of some bugs still.

Op 15-7-2019 om 22:14 schreef Dan Friedman via use-livecode:

Greetings!   I got some notices from Google (android) that my apps need to be 
updated to 64-bit by August 1, 2019.   Does LiveCode generate 64-bit Android 
apps?  If so, can I do that with Indy 9.0.4?  If so, what versions of Android 
Studio and Android SDKs do I need to install?   Any guidance will be greatly 
appreciated and surely help keep my hair in my head.

-Dan

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Android 64-bit?

[Dan Friedman via use-livecode]

Greetings!   I got some notices from Google (android) that my apps need to be 
updated to 64-bit by August 1, 2019.   Does LiveCode generate 64-bit Android 
apps?  If so, can I do that with Indy 9.0.4?  If so, what versions of Android 
Studio and Android SDKs do I need to install?   Any guidance will be greatly 
appreciated and surely help keep my hair in my head.

-Dan

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Question about 64 bit builds

[Tom Glod via use-livecode]

Hey folks,

On a 64 bit build, can groups be bigger than  -32768 to 32767? pixels?

Don't ask why one would want it bigger.  :D

Thanks,

Tom
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Monte Goulding via use-livecode]

The PIC issue will not be resolved for dp 1 as it doesn’t impact our toolchains 
on travis or vulcan and as Mark pointed out there’s a workaround.

> On 14 May 2019, at 10:25 am, Brian Milby via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Yes, building against develop.
> Using gcc 7.4.0
> 
> This was a laptop I setup about 8 months ago with Ubuntu 18.04.  I loaded all 
> of the build stuff then but ran into the PIC issue and stopped.  I had VMs 
> with 16.04 that I could still use to build on Linux.
> 
> After all of the recent activity I decided to give a build a try and it made 
> it through the link process this time.
> 
> I just pulled everything again and now it fails.  My guess is that I got a 
> “good” copy of prebuilts on my previous build somehow.  I did notice that it 
> downloaded several prebuilts this time.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brian
> On May 13, 2019, 6:13 PM -0400, Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
> , wrote:
>> On 5/13/19 12:46 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:
>>> I was just able to build for the first time in Ubuntu 18.04 and it comes up 
>>> 9.5 (dp 1).
>>> I never went far enough to figure out how to overcome the PIC issue myself 
>>> and waited for it to make it to develop.
>> 
>> It's still in progress.
>> 
>> Are you building against the develop branch?
>> What version of gcc are you using?
>> https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6953/ broke the current build
>> process. I have to patch a couple of build files to get it to compile.
>> https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6897
>> 
>> Ian has a new PR on the way.
>> https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/7032
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Wieder
>> ahsoftw...@gmail.com
>> 
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

Yes, building against develop.
Using gcc 7.4.0

This was a laptop I setup about 8 months ago with Ubuntu 18.04.  I loaded all 
of the build stuff then but ran into the PIC issue and stopped.  I had VMs with 
16.04 that I could still use to build on Linux.

After all of the recent activity I decided to give a build a try and it made it 
through the link process this time.

I just pulled everything again and now it fails.  My guess is that I got a 
“good” copy of prebuilts on my previous build somehow.  I did notice that it 
downloaded several prebuilts this time.

Thanks,
Brian
On May 13, 2019, 6:13 PM -0400, Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
, wrote:
> On 5/13/19 12:46 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:
> > I was just able to build for the first time in Ubuntu 18.04 and it comes up 
> > 9.5 (dp 1).
> > I never went far enough to figure out how to overcome the PIC issue myself 
> > and waited for it to make it to develop.
>
> It's still in progress.
>
> Are you building against the develop branch?
> What version of gcc are you using?
> https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6953/ broke the current build
> process. I have to patch a couple of build files to get it to compile.
> https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6897
>
> Ian has a new PR on the way.
> https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/7032
>
> --
> Mark Wieder
> ahsoftw...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 5/13/19 12:46 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:

I was just able to build for the first time in Ubuntu 18.04 and it comes up 9.5 
(dp 1).
I never went far enough to figure out how to overcome the PIC issue myself and 
waited for it to make it to develop.


It's still in progress.

Are you building against the develop branch?
What version of gcc are you using?
https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6953/ broke the current build 
process. I have to patch a couple of build files to get it to compile.

https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6897

Ian has a new PR on the way.
https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/7032

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[JJS via use-livecode]

I've looked thru the descriptions on how to build it your self on 
github, but never tried it.


Maybe it gives some insights, on the other hand for me it may give to 
much distraction instead of developing the apps i'm working on


Op 13-5-2019 om 21:46 schreef Brian Milby via use-livecode:

I was just able to build for the first time in Ubuntu 18.04 and it comes up 9.5 
(dp 1).
I never went far enough to figure out how to overcome the PIC issue myself and 
waited for it to make it to develop.

Thanks,
Brian
On May 13, 2019, 3:31 PM -0400, Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
, wrote:

On 5/13/19 12:13 PM, JJS via use-livecode wrote:

there is also a 9.0.5rc1, so i think they changed it from 9.1.0dp1 to
9.5.0dp1, but unclear why

My guess is that it was originally a typo that then propagated to
several commits, and by that point it was too much trouble to fix. FWIW
the last time I was able to build from source (even after the 9.5
renaming thing) it still came out externally as 9.1.

--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

I was just able to build for the first time in Ubuntu 18.04 and it comes up 9.5 
(dp 1).
I never went far enough to figure out how to overcome the PIC issue myself and 
waited for it to make it to develop.

Thanks,
Brian
On May 13, 2019, 3:31 PM -0400, Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
, wrote:
> On 5/13/19 12:13 PM, JJS via use-livecode wrote:
> > there is also a 9.0.5rc1, so i think they changed it from 9.1.0dp1 to
> > 9.5.0dp1, but unclear why
>
> My guess is that it was originally a typo that then propagated to
> several commits, and by that point it was too much trouble to fix. FWIW
> the last time I was able to build from source (even after the 9.5
> renaming thing) it still came out externally as 9.1.
>
> --
> Mark Wieder
> ahsoftw...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 5/13/19 12:13 PM, JJS via use-livecode wrote:
there is also a 9.0.5rc1, so i think they changed it from 9.1.0dp1 to 
9.5.0dp1, but unclear why


My guess is that it was originally a typo that then propagated to 
several commits, and by that point it was too much trouble to fix. FWIW 
the last time I was able to build from source (even after the 9.5 
renaming thing) it still came out externally as 9.1.


--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[JJS via use-livecode]

there is also a 9.0.5rc1, so i think they changed it from 9.1.0dp1 to 
9.5.0dp1, but unclear why


Op 13-5-2019 om 16:39 schreef Andrew Bell via use-livecode:
Hopefully it's a type for 9.0.5DP1 since 9.0.4 was released today. I 
can't wait to use some new faster Android emulators!


--Andrew Bell


Subject: Re: Android needs 64 bit builds
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

a minor thing probably i noticed. The 9.1.0DP1 jumped to 9.5.0DP1. Is
this a typo? or do have to wait longer? Just asking.




___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Andrew Bell via use-livecode]

Hopefully it's a type for 9.0.5DP1 since 9.0.4 was released today. I  
can't wait to use some new faster Android emulators!


--Andrew Bell


Subject: Re: Android needs 64 bit builds
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

a minor thing probably i noticed. The 9.1.0DP1 jumped to 9.5.0DP1. Is
this a typo? or do have to wait longer? Just asking.




___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Sphere via use-livecode]

a minor thing probably i noticed. The 9.1.0DP1 jumped to 9.5.0DP1. Is 
this a typo? or do have to wait longer? Just asking.



Mark Wieder via use-livecode schreef op 2019-05-06 23:26:

On 5/6/19 3:44 PM, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:

Ah. OK. So the problem with running on the pi isn't with building 
form arm devices, but with interacting with the pi os?


I believe it is largely an issue of getting the build configuration 
and toolchains correct for cross compiling for armv6hf. Although given 
Pi 3s are arm64 but Raspbian is still armv6hf I guess we would need a 
build for a number of archs (armv6hf, armv7, arm64) depending on what 
OS people are running.


For us there is the extra step of getting it all setup on vulcan to 
build and package etc.


Ouch. I didn't realize raspbian was still armv6hf, although it makes
sense for older hardware. That thickens the plot a bit. I'd certainly
settle for an arm64-only build of the LC engine, but shoehorning it
into an arm6hf os seems dicey.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 5/6/19 3:44 PM, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:


Ah. OK. So the problem with running on the pi isn't with building form arm 
devices, but with interacting with the pi os?


I believe it is largely an issue of getting the build configuration and 
toolchains correct for cross compiling for armv6hf. Although given Pi 3s are 
arm64 but Raspbian is still armv6hf I guess we would need a build for a number 
of archs (armv6hf, armv7, arm64) depending on what OS people are running.

For us there is the extra step of getting it all setup on vulcan to build and 
package etc.


Ouch. I didn't realize raspbian was still armv6hf, although it makes 
sense for older hardware. That thickens the plot a bit. I'd certainly 
settle for an arm64-only build of the LC engine, but shoehorning it into 
an arm6hf os seems dicey.


--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Monte Goulding via use-livecode]

> On 7 May 2019, at 3:08 am, Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 5/5/19 9:52 PM, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:
>>> On 6 May 2019, at 12:18 pm, Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 Most new devices will be arm64 however I think what you are seeing there 
 is the binaries that you have for use in an emulator. I have come across a 
 few devices that have arm64 processors but did not include the arm64 OS 
 libraries so only load armv7 binaries. These are generally low end devices.
>>> 
>>> Any chance we can leverage this to create a raspberry pi LC build?
>> Not unless the pi is running android.
> 
> Ah. OK. So the problem with running on the pi isn't with building form arm 
> devices, but with interacting with the pi os?

I believe it is largely an issue of getting the build configuration and 
toolchains correct for cross compiling for armv6hf. Although given Pi 3s are 
arm64 but Raspbian is still armv6hf I guess we would need a build for a number 
of archs (armv6hf, armv7, arm64) depending on what OS people are running.

For us there is the extra step of getting it all setup on vulcan to build and 
package etc.

Cheers

Monte
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 5/5/19 9:52 PM, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:



On 6 May 2019, at 12:18 pm, Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Most new devices will be arm64 however I think what you are seeing there is the 
binaries that you have for use in an emulator. I have come across a few devices 
that have arm64 processors but did not include the arm64 OS libraries so only 
load armv7 binaries. These are generally low end devices.


Any chance we can leverage this to create a raspberry pi LC build?


Not unless the pi is running android.


Ah. OK. So the problem with running on the pi isn't with building form 
arm devices, but with interacting with the pi os?


--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[JJS via use-livecode]

Ah ok, that makes it clear. I thought it was related to what one was 
able to build for.


Thanks Monte.


Jerry


Op 6-5-2019 om 01:25 schreef Monte Goulding via use-livecode:



On 4 May 2019, at 3:45 am, JJS via use-livecode  
wrote:

@Monte. I only see Atom x64 ARM for Android 7.1.1 in the SDK list in Android 
Studio. For all the higher Android versions i only see x86 and no ARM. I don't 
know if there are phones sold which have Android 8.x.x based on ARMx64. Do you 
know any details?

Most new devices will be arm64 however I think what you are seeing there is the 
binaries that you have for use in an emulator. I have come across a few devices 
that have arm64 processors but did not include the arm64 OS libraries so only 
load armv7 binaries. These are generally low end devices.

Cheers

Monte
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Monte Goulding via use-livecode]

> On 6 May 2019, at 12:18 pm, Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Most new devices will be arm64 however I think what you are seeing there is 
>> the binaries that you have for use in an emulator. I have come across a few 
>> devices that have arm64 processors but did not include the arm64 OS 
>> libraries so only load armv7 binaries. These are generally low end devices.
> 
> Any chance we can leverage this to create a raspberry pi LC build?

Not unless the pi is running android.

Cheers

Monte
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 5/5/19 4:25 PM, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:


Most new devices will be arm64 however I think what you are seeing there is the 
binaries that you have for use in an emulator. I have come across a few devices 
that have arm64 processors but did not include the arm64 OS libraries so only 
load armv7 binaries. These are generally low end devices.


Any chance we can leverage this to create a raspberry pi LC build?

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Monte Goulding via use-livecode]

> On 4 May 2019, at 3:45 am, JJS via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> @Monte. I only see Atom x64 ARM for Android 7.1.1 in the SDK list in Android 
> Studio. For all the higher Android versions i only see x86 and no ARM. I 
> don't know if there are phones sold which have Android 8.x.x based on ARMx64. 
> Do you know any details?

Most new devices will be arm64 however I think what you are seeing there is the 
binaries that you have for use in an emulator. I have come across a few devices 
that have arm64 processors but did not include the arm64 OS libraries so only 
load armv7 binaries. These are generally low end devices.

Cheers

Monte
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

You can have more than one apk in production as long as they target different 
devices. In LCs case that would be 4 apks one for each architecture. The apk 
for the user's device will be automatically selected when installing from 
PlayStore. The size decrease comes from building 4 apks. Each of the 4 apks 
supports 1 architecture instead of 1 huge apk with all 4 engines. If you build 
1 large apk then you can limit the devices your app is compatible with. I use 
the signing and does not create anymore work. It seems to be transparent.

Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net

-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of 
JJS via use-livecode
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 1:46 PM
To: Richmond via use-livecode
Cc: JJS
Subject: Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

@Monte. I only see Atom x64 ARM for Android 7.1.1 in the SDK list in Android 
Studio. For all the higher Android versions i only see x86 and no ARM. I don't 
know if there are phones sold which have Android 8.x.x based on ARMx64. Do you 
know any details?

@Ralph, i did not see that (the different builds) yet in the Play Developer 
Console. Or is it only available when you use the signing which is offered by 
Google? (upload and download there signature
etcetera) It is also where your APK can be decreased in size, but i don't think 
it is for builds outside Android Studio? Any experience with that?


Thanks,

Jerry


Op 3-5-2019 om 08:01 schreef Richmond via use-livecode:
> Time to dust off my Intel chip Android tablet
>
> Richmond.
>
> On 3.05.19 г. 1:38 ч., Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 May 2019, at 4:07 am, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Wow. X86 too! Now we can use the faster emulator. :)
>> Yes that was the main reason for us doing x86 and x86_64 although 
>> there are some devices available for those architectures they aren’t 
>> very common so you probably only want to build for arm7 and arm64 
>> when releasing to avoid bloating your app too much.
>>
>> To make things simpler the Test button for android will detect the 
>> architecture of the target device/emulator and build just for that 
>> even if you don’t currently have it selected in the standalone builder.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Monte
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[JJS via use-livecode]

@Monte. I only see Atom x64 ARM for Android 7.1.1 in the SDK list in 
Android Studio. For all the higher Android versions i only see x86 and 
no ARM. I don't know if there are phones sold which have Android 8.x.x 
based on ARMx64. Do you know any details?


@Ralph, i did not see that (the different builds) yet in the Play 
Developer Console. Or is it only available when you use the signing 
which is offered by Google? (upload and download there signature 
etcetera) It is also where your APK can be decreased in size, but i 
don't think it is for builds outside Android Studio? Any experience with 
that?



Thanks,

Jerry


Op 3-5-2019 om 08:01 schreef Richmond via use-livecode:

Time to dust off my Intel chip Android tablet

Richmond.

On 3.05.19 г. 1:38 ч., Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:


On 3 May 2019, at 4:07 am, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
 wrote:


Wow. X86 too! Now we can use the faster emulator. :)
Yes that was the main reason for us doing x86 and x86_64 although 
there are some devices available for those architectures they aren’t 
very common so you probably only want to build for arm7 and arm64 
when releasing to avoid bloating your app too much.


To make things simpler the Test button for android will detect the 
architecture of the target device/emulator and build just for that 
even if you don’t currently have it selected in the standalone builder.


Cheers

Monte
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Richmond via use-livecode]

Time to dust off my Intel chip Android tablet

Richmond.

On 3.05.19 г. 1:38 ч., Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote:



On 3 May 2019, at 4:07 am, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
 wrote:

Wow. X86 too! Now we can use the faster emulator. :)

Yes that was the main reason for us doing x86 and x86_64 although there are 
some devices available for those architectures they aren’t very common so you 
probably only want to build for arm7 and arm64 when releasing to avoid bloating 
your app too much.

To make things simpler the Test button for android will detect the architecture 
of the target device/emulator and build just for that even if you don’t 
currently have it selected in the standalone builder.

Cheers

Monte
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

You can upload 4 separate builds to Google Play for each the archs and when the 
user installs only the apk for the user's device arch will download. This 
alleviates having one huge apk. Some devices have apk size limits that you can 
hit. The only hitch is that the build number bust be different for each. I am 
working on a IDE build plug-in that will build all 4 to separate apks and 
automatically up the version number by 1 for each arch.
 
Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net


-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of 
Monte Goulding via use-livecode
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 6:39 PM
To: How to use LiveCode
Cc: Monte Goulding
Subject: Re: Android needs 64 bit builds



> On 3 May 2019, at 4:07 am, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Wow. X86 too! Now we can use the faster emulator. :)

Yes that was the main reason for us doing x86 and x86_64 although there are 
some devices available for those architectures they aren’t very common so you 
probably only want to build for arm7 and arm64 when releasing to avoid bloating 
your app too much.

To make things simpler the Test button for android will detect the architecture 
of the target device/emulator and build just for that even if you don’t 
currently have it selected in the standalone builder.

Cheers

Monte
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Monte Goulding via use-livecode]

> On 3 May 2019, at 4:07 am, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Wow. X86 too! Now we can use the faster emulator. :)

Yes that was the main reason for us doing x86 and x86_64 although there are 
some devices available for those architectures they aren’t very common so you 
probably only want to build for arm7 and arm64 when releasing to avoid bloating 
your app too much.

To make things simpler the Test button for android will detect the architecture 
of the target device/emulator and build just for that even if you don’t 
currently have it selected in the standalone builder.

Cheers

Monte
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

Wow. X86 too! Now we can use the faster emulator. :)

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On May 2, 2019 12:24:21 PM JJS via use-livecode 
 wrote:



Jacque, check the image on this page :
https://github.com/livecode/livecode-ide/pull/1990

:)


Op 1-5-2019 om 23:23 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode:

Fantastic. Thank you.

On 5/1/19 3:30 PM, JJS via use-livecode wrote:

it will be in 9.1

Op 1-5-2019 om 17:33 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode:

I remember your question and have also been waiting for a response.
Hopefully someone on the team will see this, but if not a note to
support may give us an answer.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On May 1, 2019 9:08:38 AM Andrew Bell via use-livecode
 wrote:


This was originally mentioned in a message at the end of January, but
that thread never went anywhere. I submitted an updated app to Google
Play today and noticed the warning message myself for the first time.
It seems we have a few more months to prepare for this, but can't
recall seeing any mention of this on the LiveCode roadmap.

https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit

--Andrew Bell





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[JJS via use-livecode]

Jacque, check the image on this page : 
https://github.com/livecode/livecode-ide/pull/1990


:)


Op 1-5-2019 om 23:23 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode:

Fantastic. Thank you.

On 5/1/19 3:30 PM, JJS via use-livecode wrote:

it will be in 9.1

Op 1-5-2019 om 17:33 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode:
I remember your question and have also been waiting for a response. 
Hopefully someone on the team will see this, but if not a note to 
support may give us an answer.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On May 1, 2019 9:08:38 AM Andrew Bell via use-livecode 
 wrote:



This was originally mentioned in a message at the end of January, but
that thread never went anywhere. I submitted an updated app to Google
Play today and noticed the warning message myself for the first time.
It seems we have a few more months to prepare for this, but can't
recall seeing any mention of this on the LiveCode roadmap.

https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit

--Andrew Bell





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

Fantastic. Thank you.

On 5/1/19 3:30 PM, JJS via use-livecode wrote:

it will be in 9.1

Op 1-5-2019 om 17:33 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode:
I remember your question and have also been waiting for a response. 
Hopefully someone on the team will see this, but if not a note to 
support may give us an answer.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On May 1, 2019 9:08:38 AM Andrew Bell via use-livecode 
 wrote:



This was originally mentioned in a message at the end of January, but
that thread never went anywhere. I submitted an updated app to Google
Play today and noticed the warning message myself for the first time.
It seems we have a few more months to prepare for this, but can't
recall seeing any mention of this on the LiveCode roadmap.

https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit

--Andrew Bell



--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[JJS via use-livecode]

it will be in 9.1

Op 1-5-2019 om 17:33 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode:
I remember your question and have also been waiting for a response. 
Hopefully someone on the team will see this, but if not a note to 
support may give us an answer.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On May 1, 2019 9:08:38 AM Andrew Bell via use-livecode 
 wrote:



This was originally mentioned in a message at the end of January, but
that thread never went anywhere. I submitted an updated app to Google
Play today and noticed the warning message myself for the first time.
It seems we have a few more months to prepare for this, but can't
recall seeing any mention of this on the LiveCode roadmap.

https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit

--Andrew Bell


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

I remember your question and have also been waiting for a response. 
Hopefully someone on the team will see this, but if not a note to support 
may give us an answer.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On May 1, 2019 9:08:38 AM Andrew Bell via use-livecode 
 wrote:



This was originally mentioned in a message at the end of January, but
that thread never went anywhere. I submitted an updated app to Google
Play today and noticed the warning message myself for the first time.
It seems we have a few more months to prepare for this, but can't
recall seeing any mention of this on the LiveCode roadmap.

https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit

--Andrew Bell


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Android needs 64 bit builds

[Andrew Bell via use-livecode]

This was originally mentioned in a message at the end of January, but  
that thread never went anywhere. I submitted an updated app to Google  
Play today and noticed the warning message myself for the first time.  
It seems we have a few more months to prepare for this, but can't  
recall seeing any mention of this on the LiveCode roadmap.


https://developer.android.com/distribute/best-practices/develop/64-bit

--Andrew Bell


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Android needs 64 bit builds

[JJS via use-livecode]

Hi,


just to let you know, but probably if you have a dev account at google 
you've received this message too, so for people who don't have a dev 
account at google.


This was in the email from Google for Android builds.


Get your apps ready for the 64-bit requirement Starting August 1, 2019,

all new apps and app updates that include native code are required to 
provide 64-bit versions,


in addition to 32-bit versions, when publishing to Google Play.

We want to help you get ready and know you need time to plan.

So i'm looking forward to lc9dp1.


Cheers, Jerry


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Windows 64-bit builds

[Matthias Rebbe via use-livecode]

Oh, what a pity. I really have hoped that i missed an announcement.

So we still have to wait for Win 64-bit.

Matthias


Matthias Rebbe

free tools for Livecoders:
https://instamaker.dermattes.de <https://instamaker.dermattes.de/>
https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de <https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de/>

> Am 28.01.2019 um 01:47 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
> mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>:
> 
> Oops, I had a brain freeze. I don't see the option in Windows either, it's in 
> the Mac settings in LC 8.1. Now that you've drawn my attention to it, I see 
> it's reversed in LC 9.0.2 which says that 32-bit is deprecated. So, no 
> problem.
> 
> Thanks for the correction. I need more sleep.
> 
> On 1/27/19 3:44 PM, Matthias Rebbe via use-livecode wrote:
>> Am very interested in 64bit Windows standalones, but cannot see that option 
>> in Standalone Settings in my LC 9.0.2 on Mac OS X.
>> In what LC version do you see that option?
>> Btw, when the Mac OS X 64-bit option was still experimental i used it a lot 
>> and did not run into any problem with my apps.
>> Matthias Rebbe
>> free tools for Livecoders:
>> https://instamaker.dermattes.de <https://instamaker.dermattes.de/> 
>> <https://instamaker.dermattes.de/ <https://instamaker.dermattes.de/>>
>> https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de <https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de/> 
>> <https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de/ <https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de/>>
>>> Am 27.01.2019 um 22:27 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>>> mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> 
>>> <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com 
>>> <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>>:
>>> 
>>> Standalone settings shows the Windows 64-bit option as "experimental." How 
>>> experimental is it, and has anyone had any issues?
>>> 
>>> A little story: I was just contacted by a client I did some work for 15 
>>> years ago. She's been running the same app all this time, but a while back 
>>> she lost the ability to run it on her OS X Mac at home (the app was built 
>>> for OS 9) so she wants it updated for OS X. The ancient Windows app still 
>>> runs on her Windows 10 box at work.
>>> 
>>> Since I'm going to rebuild it for OS X, we're going to update the Windows 
>>> version as well. I'm wondering if I should go ahead and use 64-bit for that 
>>> to ensure the app will still work 15 years into the future.
>>> 
>>> It's astounding to me that a LiveCode app built with MC 2.7 is still viable 
>>> in today's software environment. You have to applaud the team's incredible 
>>> dedication to backward compatibility.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com 
>>> <mailto:jac...@hyperactivesw.com> <mailto:jac...@hyperactivesw.com 
>>> <mailto:jac...@hyperactivesw.com>>
>>> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com 
>>> <http://www.hyperactivesw.com/> <http://www.hyperactivesw.com/ 
>>> <http://www.hyperactivesw.com/>>
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> 
>>> <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com 
>>> <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode 
>>> <http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode>
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com 
> <mailto:jac...@hyperactivesw.com>
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com 
> <http://www.hyperactivesw.com/>
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Windows 64-bit builds

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

Oops, I had a brain freeze. I don't see the option in Windows either, 
it's in the Mac settings in LC 8.1. Now that you've drawn my attention 
to it, I see it's reversed in LC 9.0.2 which says that 32-bit is 
deprecated. So, no problem.


Thanks for the correction. I need more sleep.

On 1/27/19 3:44 PM, Matthias Rebbe via use-livecode wrote:

Am very interested in 64bit Windows standalones, but cannot see that option in 
Standalone Settings in my LC 9.0.2 on Mac OS X.
In what LC version do you see that option?

Btw, when the Mac OS X 64-bit option was still experimental i used it a lot and 
did not run into any problem with my apps.


Matthias Rebbe

free tools for Livecoders:
https://instamaker.dermattes.de <https://instamaker.dermattes.de/>
https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de <https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de/>


Am 27.01.2019 um 22:27 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>:

Standalone settings shows the Windows 64-bit option as "experimental." How 
experimental is it, and has anyone had any issues?

A little story: I was just contacted by a client I did some work for 15 years 
ago. She's been running the same app all this time, but a while back she lost 
the ability to run it on her OS X Mac at home (the app was built for OS 9) so 
she wants it updated for OS X. The ancient Windows app still runs on her 
Windows 10 box at work.

Since I'm going to rebuild it for OS X, we're going to update the Windows 
version as well. I'm wondering if I should go ahead and use 64-bit for that to 
ensure the app will still work 15 years into the future.

It's astounding to me that a LiveCode app built with MC 2.7 is still viable in 
today's software environment. You have to applaud the team's incredible 
dedication to backward compatibility.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com 
<mailto:jac...@hyperactivesw.com>
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com 
<http://www.hyperactivesw.com/>

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode




--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Windows 64-bit builds

[Matthias Rebbe via use-livecode]

Am very interested in 64bit Windows standalones, but cannot see that option in 
Standalone Settings in my LC 9.0.2 on Mac OS X.
In what LC version do you see that option?

Btw, when the Mac OS X 64-bit option was still experimental i used it a lot and 
did not run into any problem with my apps.


Matthias Rebbe

free tools for Livecoders:
https://instamaker.dermattes.de <https://instamaker.dermattes.de/>
https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de <https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de/>

> Am 27.01.2019 um 22:27 schrieb J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
> mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>:
> 
> Standalone settings shows the Windows 64-bit option as "experimental." How 
> experimental is it, and has anyone had any issues?
> 
> A little story: I was just contacted by a client I did some work for 15 years 
> ago. She's been running the same app all this time, but a while back she lost 
> the ability to run it on her OS X Mac at home (the app was built for OS 9) so 
> she wants it updated for OS X. The ancient Windows app still runs on her 
> Windows 10 box at work.
> 
> Since I'm going to rebuild it for OS X, we're going to update the Windows 
> version as well. I'm wondering if I should go ahead and use 64-bit for that 
> to ensure the app will still work 15 years into the future.
> 
> It's astounding to me that a LiveCode app built with MC 2.7 is still viable 
> in today's software environment. You have to applaud the team's incredible 
> dedication to backward compatibility.
> 
> -- 
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com 
> <mailto:jac...@hyperactivesw.com>
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com 
> <http://www.hyperactivesw.com/>
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Windows 64-bit builds

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

Standalone settings shows the Windows 64-bit option as "experimental." 
How experimental is it, and has anyone had any issues?


A little story: I was just contacted by a client I did some work for 15 
years ago. She's been running the same app all this time, but a while 
back she lost the ability to run it on her OS X Mac at home (the app was 
built for OS 9) so she wants it updated for OS X. The ancient Windows 
app still runs on her Windows 10 box at work.


Since I'm going to rebuild it for OS X, we're going to update the 
Windows version as well. I'm wondering if I should go ahead and use 
64-bit for that to ensure the app will still work 15 years into the future.


It's astounding to me that a LiveCode app built with MC 2.7 is still 
viable in today's software environment. You have to applaud the team's 
incredible dedication to backward compatibility.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revsecurity.dylib is not 64-bit on macOS

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

Two files to update:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/livecodepanos/livecode/78435e7a4e36ed0a0892262e88310adff2efc897/ide-support/revsaveasstandalone.livecodescript

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/livecodepanos/livecode/78435e7a4e36ed0a0892262e88310adff2efc897/ide-support/revsblibrary.livecodescript


On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:16 AM Matthias Rebbe via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Has anyone on the list already applied the fix locally and would like to
> share the modified file?
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>
> Matthias Rebbe
>
> free tools for Livecoders:
> https://instamaker.dermattes.de
> https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de
>
> > Am 03.12.2018 um 23:23 schrieb panagiotis merakos via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > This will be fixed in the next LiveCode release. If you can't wait, you
> can
> > apply the fix locally:
> >
> > https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6806
> >
> > Best,
> > Panos
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 21:56 Brian Milby via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com wrote:
> >
> >> Just need to de-fat the file.  Need to change to the location within the
> >> app package in the terminal and use the following command:
> >>
> >> lipo revsecurity.dylib -remove i386 -output revsecurity.dylib
> >>
> >> May need to use "sudo".  Also, will need to resign the app after doing
> so.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:43 PM kee nethery via use-livecode <
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Trying to upload to the Mac App Store and I get this error.
> >>>
> >>> “Unsupported Architectures. Your executable contained the following
> >>> disallowed architectures: ‘[i386 (in
> >> com.elloco.ellocotools.pkg/Payload/El
> >>> Loco Tools.app/Contents/MacOS/revsecurity.dylib)]’. New apps submitted
> to
> >>> the Mac App Store must support 64-bit starting January 2018, and Mac
> app
> >>> updates and existing apps must support 64-bit starting June 2018.”
> >>>
> >>> Is there a 64-bit revsecurity.dylib I can download and swap in to
> replace
> >>> the 32-bit version installed by LiveCode Standalone App Builder?
> >>>
> >>> Alternatively, what functionality must I remove from my app so that
> >>> revsecurity.dylib does not get installed (or can be safely removed
> >>> manually)?
> >>>
> >>> Kee Nethery
> >>> ___
> >>> use-livecode mailing list
> >>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> >>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> >>> subscription preferences:
> >>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> >> ___
> >> use-livecode mailing list
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> >> subscription preferences:
> >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> > ___
> > use-livecode mailing list
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revsecurity.dylib is not 64-bit on macOS

[Matthias Rebbe via use-livecode]

Has anyone on the list already applied the fix locally and would like to share 
the modified file?

Regards,
Matthias


Matthias Rebbe

free tools for Livecoders:
https://instamaker.dermattes.de
https://winsignhelper.dermattes.de

> Am 03.12.2018 um 23:23 schrieb panagiotis merakos via use-livecode 
> :
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> This will be fixed in the next LiveCode release. If you can't wait, you can
> apply the fix locally:
> 
> https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6806
> 
> Best,
> Panos
> 
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 21:56 Brian Milby via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com wrote:
> 
>> Just need to de-fat the file.  Need to change to the location within the
>> app package in the terminal and use the following command:
>> 
>> lipo revsecurity.dylib -remove i386 -output revsecurity.dylib
>> 
>> May need to use "sudo".  Also, will need to resign the app after doing so.
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:43 PM kee nethery via use-livecode <
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Trying to upload to the Mac App Store and I get this error.
>>> 
>>> “Unsupported Architectures. Your executable contained the following
>>> disallowed architectures: ‘[i386 (in
>> com.elloco.ellocotools.pkg/Payload/El
>>> Loco Tools.app/Contents/MacOS/revsecurity.dylib)]’. New apps submitted to
>>> the Mac App Store must support 64-bit starting January 2018, and Mac app
>>> updates and existing apps must support 64-bit starting June 2018.”
>>> 
>>> Is there a 64-bit revsecurity.dylib I can download and swap in to replace
>>> the 32-bit version installed by LiveCode Standalone App Builder?
>>> 
>>> Alternatively, what functionality must I remove from my app so that
>>> revsecurity.dylib does not get installed (or can be safely removed
>>> manually)?
>>> 
>>> Kee Nethery
>>> ___
>>> use-livecode mailing list
>>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>>> subscription preferences:
>>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revsecurity.dylib is not 64-bit on macOS

[panagiotis merakos via use-livecode]

Hello all,

This will be fixed in the next LiveCode release. If you can't wait, you can
apply the fix locally:

https://github.com/livecode/livecode/pull/6806

Best,
Panos

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 21:56 Brian Milby via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com wrote:

> Just need to de-fat the file.  Need to change to the location within the
> app package in the terminal and use the following command:
>
> lipo revsecurity.dylib -remove i386 -output revsecurity.dylib
>
> May need to use "sudo".  Also, will need to resign the app after doing so.
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:43 PM kee nethery via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > Trying to upload to the Mac App Store and I get this error.
> >
> > “Unsupported Architectures. Your executable contained the following
> > disallowed architectures: ‘[i386 (in
> com.elloco.ellocotools.pkg/Payload/El
> > Loco Tools.app/Contents/MacOS/revsecurity.dylib)]’. New apps submitted to
> > the Mac App Store must support 64-bit starting January 2018, and Mac app
> > updates and existing apps must support 64-bit starting June 2018.”
> >
> > Is there a 64-bit revsecurity.dylib I can download and swap in to replace
> > the 32-bit version installed by LiveCode Standalone App Builder?
> >
> > Alternatively, what functionality must I remove from my app so that
> > revsecurity.dylib does not get installed (or can be safely removed
> > manually)?
> >
> > Kee Nethery
> > ___
> > use-livecode mailing list
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revsecurity.dylib is not 64-bit on macOS

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

Just need to de-fat the file.  Need to change to the location within the
app package in the terminal and use the following command:

lipo revsecurity.dylib -remove i386 -output revsecurity.dylib

May need to use "sudo".  Also, will need to resign the app after doing so.

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:43 PM kee nethery via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Trying to upload to the Mac App Store and I get this error.
>
> “Unsupported Architectures. Your executable contained the following
> disallowed architectures: ‘[i386 (in com.elloco.ellocotools.pkg/Payload/El
> Loco Tools.app/Contents/MacOS/revsecurity.dylib)]’. New apps submitted to
> the Mac App Store must support 64-bit starting January 2018, and Mac app
> updates and existing apps must support 64-bit starting June 2018.”
>
> Is there a 64-bit revsecurity.dylib I can download and swap in to replace
> the 32-bit version installed by LiveCode Standalone App Builder?
>
> Alternatively, what functionality must I remove from my app so that
> revsecurity.dylib does not get installed (or can be safely removed
> manually)?
>
> Kee Nethery
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

revsecurity.dylib is not 64-bit on macOS

[kee nethery via use-livecode]

Trying to upload to the Mac App Store and I get this error.

“Unsupported Architectures. Your executable contained the following disallowed 
architectures: ‘[i386 (in com.elloco.ellocotools.pkg/Payload/El Loco 
Tools.app/Contents/MacOS/revsecurity.dylib)]’. New apps submitted to the Mac 
App Store must support 64-bit starting January 2018, and Mac app updates and 
existing apps must support 64-bit starting June 2018.”

Is there a 64-bit revsecurity.dylib I can download and swap in to replace the 
32-bit version installed by LiveCode Standalone App Builder? 

Alternatively, what functionality must I remove from my app so that 
revsecurity.dylib does not get installed (or can be safely removed manually)?

Kee Nethery
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

HP was designing these things before there was math.
Sad what has happened to the company. I'd like to blame Fiorina for the 
mess but she only took a bad thing and made it worse.


--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Kee Nethery via use-livecode]

On Jul 20, 2018, at 7:39 PM, Jerry Jensen via wrote:
> 
> Just whip out your HP-35. It gets right answers!
> .Jerry

Long ago I sat on a bus at a conference next to the product manager for the 
HP-35. He said that they ran out of a part that was no longer made and had to 
re-design the board to use new modern components. The new processor was of 
course faster and so when it did it’s calculations it just instantly gave you 
the answer. The people that bought the new version, which looked just like the 
old version, didn’t trust it because it didn’t spend the time that it needed to 
do the calculations. Obviously there was something wrong. 

It was such a big support problem that they had to re-design it and have it 
mimic the old version where it sits there and looks like it’s thinking for a 
while before it gave you the answer. 

They swapped all of the brand new fast ones for the new slow ones and everyone 
was happy. 

Mine is many many decades old and about a decade ago it stopped working so I 
called the support number just to see if anyone would answer and sure enough 
there was someone who answered that phone number. The number was probably four 
decades old and they figured out what my problem was. That’s a pretty 
successful product.

Kee Nethery 

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 07/20/2018 06:45 PM, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:

On 7/20/2018 9:20 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:

I'm surprised there wasn't an answer before this as well. This subject
comes up every few years.

The engine bitness won't affect math results. The standard library
used for math will fail beyond the scope at both ends and you'll end
up doing the math yourself with strings if you need more accuracy.


Found it. By the LC CTO himself.

https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=9349


Ah... from seven years ago.
Not that Rev 4.6.0-dp2 really brings back any memories.

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 07/20/2018 06:47 PM, Paul Dupuis via use-livecode wrote:


And this one: https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12440


I'm not sure what a status of 'hibernated' means.
Probably waiting until after something freezes over.

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Jerry Jensen via use-livecode]

Just whip out your HP-35. It gets right answers!
.Jerry

> On Jul 20, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if we could forgo the speed in lieu of accuracy? I mean, 
> how could you develop an accounting application you could trust with this 
> caveat?
> 
> Bob S
> 
> 
>> On Jul 20, 2018, at 17:17 , Kay C Lan via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Surprised that no one has replied to this so I'll just offer a bit of
>> advice.  Whilst on the surface your assumption is correct, 64bit will
>> allow more accuracy than 32 bit, what you need to be aware of is the
>> same gotchas still apply to 64 bit LC as 32 bit LC.  Try this in the
>> msg box:
>> 
>> put 283.67-150.00-133.67
>> 
>> you should get 0. Now try this in the msg box:
>> 
>> put 283.67-150.00-133.67=0
>> 
>> You will get 'false' when you know you wanted true;  whether in 32bit
>> or 64 bit LC (Python, JBScript and some other languages) in some cases
>> you don't get the answer you know is correct.



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Tom Glod via use-livecode]

Thanks Kay for your detailed answer and everyone who chimed in
afterwards. will have to read it all a couple of times . i
definitely have to do some tests in this regard and see how many decimal
points i really need..., but I'm not surprised that the answer is not
straight forward . lol.. i wish i could explain the use case
better, but i have some way to go before i can explain it . seems like lots
of workarounds available, so i think the coast is clear.





On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Wouldn't it be great if we could forgo the speed in lieu of accuracy? I
> mean, how could you develop an accounting application you could trust with
> this caveat?
>
> Bob S
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 2018, at 17:17 , Kay C Lan via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > Surprised that no one has replied to this so I'll just offer a bit of
> > advice.  Whilst on the surface your assumption is correct, 64bit will
> > allow more accuracy than 32 bit, what you need to be aware of is the
> > same gotchas still apply to 64 bit LC as 32 bit LC.  Try this in the
> > msg box:
> >
> > put 283.67-150.00-133.67
> >
> > you should get 0. Now try this in the msg box:
> >
> > put 283.67-150.00-133.67=0
> >
> > You will get 'false' when you know you wanted true;  whether in 32bit
> > or 64 bit LC (Python, JBScript and some other languages) in some cases
> > you don't get the answer you know is correct.
>
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Paul Dupuis via use-livecode]

On 7/20/2018 9:20 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
> I'm surprised there wasn't an answer before this as well. This subject
> comes up every few years.
>
> The engine bitness won't affect math results. The standard library
> used for math will fail beyond the scope at both ends and you'll end
> up doing the math yourself with strings if you need more accuracy.
>
And this one: https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12440


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Paul Dupuis via use-livecode]

On 7/20/2018 9:20 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
> I'm surprised there wasn't an answer before this as well. This subject
> comes up every few years.
>
> The engine bitness won't affect math results. The standard library
> used for math will fail beyond the scope at both ends and you'll end
> up doing the math yourself with strings if you need more accuracy.
>
Found it. By the LC CTO himself.

https://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=9349


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

Wouldn't it be great if we could forgo the speed in lieu of accuracy? I mean, 
how could you develop an accounting application you could trust with this 
caveat?

Bob S


> On Jul 20, 2018, at 17:17 , Kay C Lan via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Surprised that no one has replied to this so I'll just offer a bit of
> advice.  Whilst on the surface your assumption is correct, 64bit will
> allow more accuracy than 32 bit, what you need to be aware of is the
> same gotchas still apply to 64 bit LC as 32 bit LC.  Try this in the
> msg box:
> 
> put 283.67-150.00-133.67
> 
> you should get 0. Now try this in the msg box:
> 
> put 283.67-150.00-133.67=0
> 
> You will get 'false' when you know you wanted true;  whether in 32bit
> or 64 bit LC (Python, JBScript and some other languages) in some cases
> you don't get the answer you know is correct.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Paul Dupuis via use-livecode]

On 7/20/2018 9:20 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
> I'm surprised there wasn't an answer before this as well. This subject
> comes up every few years.
>
> The engine bitness won't affect math results. The standard library
> used for math will fail beyond the scope at both ends and you'll end
> up doing the math yourself with strings if you need more accuracy.
>

There have been enhancement requests in the past (I think) for a more
precise math library that the IEEE or to add Binary Coded Decimal (BCD)
math to LC. I can't seem to find them in the Quality Center just now though.


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

I'm surprised there wasn't an answer before this as well. This subject 
comes up every few years.


The engine bitness won't affect math results. The standard library used 
for math will fail beyond the scope at both ends and you'll end up doing 
the math yourself with strings if you need more accuracy.


--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit LC

[Kay C Lan via use-livecode]

Surprised that no one has replied to this so I'll just offer a bit of
advice.  Whilst on the surface your assumption is correct, 64bit will
allow more accuracy than 32 bit, what you need to be aware of is the
same gotchas still apply to 64 bit LC as 32 bit LC.  Try this in the
msg box:

put 283.67-150.00-133.67

you should get 0. Now try this in the msg box:

put 283.67-150.00-133.67=0

You will get 'false' when you know you wanted true;  whether in 32bit
or 64 bit LC (Python, JBScript and some other languages) in some cases
you don't get the answer you know is correct.

The answer can be found in the Dictionary entry for NumberFormat:

Note: Since LiveCode does not use decimal numbers for its internal
calculations (for reasons of speed), the decimal representation of a
number is sometimes slightly off the correct number. For example,
10^-1 is equal to 0.1, but is calculated (to eighteen decimal places)
as 0.16. Because of this, setting the numberFormat to
specify many decimal places after the decimal point may produce
unexpected results in a statement that tests for an exact number. To
prevent this, either avoid setting the numberFormat to a value more
precise than you need, or use the abs function instead of the =
operator to test equality:

put abs(283.67-150.00-133.67)=0

but we still don't get the answer we are expecting.

NumberFormat is not the only LC property/command/function that is
effected by the use of 'decimal representation'; trunc is another that
comes to mind.  But as can be seen by my example ALL math within LC is
effected by the way LC treats decimal values.

If you do a search of this mailing list for 'decimal floating point'
you will find plenty of examples of people who have been caught out by
this 'computing gotcha' - again it is not just LC that suffers from
this.  For any and all 'precision' math within LC, be it 32 or 64 bit,
special attention will need to be made to account for these fringe
cases.

Good luck.

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:44 AM, Tom Glod via use-livecode
 wrote:
> Hi folks, am I correct to assume that a 64 bit build of livecode will
> enable the engine to do more precise math?  I want to build a tool that
> requires precise division  with really small decimals and multiplication of
> large numbers I want to know the number of digits is can reliably count on
> on both sides of 0, and get 100% accurate result every time.
>
> Thank you for any clarification on this subject. I defer to your greater
> wisdom.
>
> I can't test LC linux on right now, and I don't have a mac ..or i would
> test this myself. :)
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

64 bit LC

[Tom Glod via use-livecode]

Hi folks, am I correct to assume that a 64 bit build of livecode will
enable the engine to do more precise math?  I want to build a tool that
requires precise division  with really small decimals and multiplication of
large numbers I want to know the number of digits is can reliably count on
on both sides of 0, and get 100% accurate result every time.

Thank you for any clarification on this subject. I defer to your greater
wisdom.

I can't test LC linux on right now, and I don't have a mac ..or i would
test this myself. :)
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Mac 64 bit?

[Graham Samuel via use-livecode]

OK, I stopped using LC 9 in earlier versions because of instability. Richard, 
you remind me how long ago all that was… anyway since your email (below) I’ve 
switch to 9.0.0 DP11. Seems fine, although the Project Browser still seems to 
update itself in real time.

(Just as an aside, I’m having lots of trouble doing LC things on two monitors 
(bits of the IDE disappearing, stack windows being relocated off screen etc), 
but I think the recent LC8 series was much the same. I’ve put in a bug report, 
but I am worried that the whole issue may be particular to my setup so the 
mother ship won’t see anything wrong.)

Thanks for the advice

Graham

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 00:18, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
> Graham Samuel wrote:
> >>> I notice using LC 8.1.8 (the latest stable release AFAIK) that in
> >>> the Standalone Application Settings, building for Mac OS X is still
> >>> described as EXPERIMENTAL. Is this right? Has anyone experienced any
> >>> gotchas by using this type of build? In reality I don’t know what
> >>> OSX started to expect 64 bit apps, but it must have been a good few
> >>> iterations ago.
> ...
> > Then the mother ship should remove the word EXPERIMENTAL. I will raise
> > it in the quality database.
> 
> One more reason to use the most recent build during development:
> 
> In v9 you'll find that's already done: 64-bit is now the default, 
> "Experimental" has been removed, as "(Deprecated)" is now added next to 
> 32-bit.
> 
> --
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World Systems
> Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> 
> ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Mac 64 bit?

[Dave Kilroy via use-livecode]

+1

LC9 is stable as far as I’m concerned and has been for many months, I’m using 
it for development and deployment

Kind regards

Dave

PS: it’s also a pain to have to delete and reapply widgets when moving back and 
forth between LC8 and 9…


> One more reason to use the most recent build during development: 
> 
> In v9 you'll find that's already done: 64-bit is now the default, 
> "Experimental" has been removed, as "(Deprecated)" is now added next to 
> 32-bit. 
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Mac 64 bit?

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Graham Samuel wrote:
>>> I notice using LC 8.1.8 (the latest stable release AFAIK) that in
>>> the Standalone Application Settings, building for Mac OS X is still
>>> described as EXPERIMENTAL. Is this right? Has anyone experienced any
>>> gotchas by using this type of build? In reality I don’t know what
>>> OSX started to expect 64 bit apps, but it must have been a good few
>>> iterations ago.
...
> Then the mother ship should remove the word EXPERIMENTAL. I will raise
> it in the quality database.

One more reason to use the most recent build during development:

In v9 you'll find that's already done: 64-bit is now the default, 
"Experimental" has been removed, as "(Deprecated)" is now added next to 
32-bit.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Mac 64 bit?

[Graham Samuel via use-livecode]

Then the mother ship should remove the word EXPERIMENTAL. I will raise it in 
the quality database.

Thanks for the info

Graham

> On 4 Jan 2018, at 16:45, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode 
> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
> This was discussed a while back. 64 bit works fine. That is all I use. 
> 
> Bob S
> 
> 
>> On Jan 4, 2018, at 03:32 , Graham Samuel via use-livecode 
>> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Oops - I should have said “building for Mac OS 64 bit”, of course. Sorry.
>> 
>> I wrote just now
>> 
>>> I notice using LC 8.1.8 (the latest stable release AFAIK) that in the 
>>> Standalone Application Settings, building for Mac OS X is still described 
>>> as EXPERIMENTAL. Is this right? Has anyone experienced any gotchas by using 
>>> this type of build? In reality I don’t know what OSX started to expect 64 
>>> bit apps, but it must have been a good few iterations ago.
>> 
>> Graham
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Mac 64 bit?

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

This was discussed a while back. 64 bit works fine. That is all I use. 

Bob S


> On Jan 4, 2018, at 03:32 , Graham Samuel via use-livecode 
> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
> Oops - I should have said “building for Mac OS 64 bit”, of course. Sorry.
> 
> I wrote just now
> 
>> I notice using LC 8.1.8 (the latest stable release AFAIK) that in the 
>> Standalone Application Settings, building for Mac OS X is still described as 
>> EXPERIMENTAL. Is this right? Has anyone experienced any gotchas by using 
>> this type of build? In reality I don’t know what OSX started to expect 64 
>> bit apps, but it must have been a good few iterations ago.
> 
> Graham
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: Mac 64 bit?

[Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode]

Dunno: but, both the 32-bit and the 64-bit version of my Devawriter run 
"as they should"

on my Mac OS 10.7.5 imac, for all that that may be worth.

Richmond.

On 4/1/2018 1:30 pm, Graham Samuel via use-livecode wrote:

I notice using LC 8.1.8 (the latest stable release AFAIK) that in the 
Standalone Application Settings, building for Mac OS X is still described as 
EXPERIMENTAL. Is this right? Has anyone experienced any gotchas by using this 
type of build? In reality I don’t know what OSX started to expect 64 bit apps, 
but it must have been a good few iterations ago.

Graham
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Mac 64 bit?

[Graham Samuel via use-livecode]

Oops - I should have said “building for Mac OS 64 bit”, of course. Sorry.

I wrote just now

> I notice using LC 8.1.8 (the latest stable release AFAIK) that in the 
> Standalone Application Settings, building for Mac OS X is still described as 
> EXPERIMENTAL. Is this right? Has anyone experienced any gotchas by using this 
> type of build? In reality I don’t know what OSX started to expect 64 bit 
> apps, but it must have been a good few iterations ago.

Graham
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Mac 64 bit?

[Graham Samuel via use-livecode]

I notice using LC 8.1.8 (the latest stable release AFAIK) that in the 
Standalone Application Settings, building for Mac OS X is still described as 
EXPERIMENTAL. Is this right? Has anyone experienced any gotchas by using this 
type of build? In reality I don’t know what OSX started to expect 64 bit apps, 
but it must have been a good few iterations ago.

Graham
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 Bit iOS Apps

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2017-07-24 17:16, Todd Fabacher via use-livecode wrote:

Apple - "When Apple launches iOS 11 in September, the company will drop
support for old 32-bit applications"

We have some apps still on LiveCode version 7.14. Is this ONLY 32 bit 
or is

it 64Bit? Will the App die if my users upgrade to iOS 11?


ARM64 support for iOS was added in LiveCode 7.0.2 and 6.7.2.

So *hopefully* all should be well for your existing apps.

However, as with all upgrades to iOS we strongly recommend you 
explicitly test you apps in iOS 11 to make sure there are not other 
problems caused by changes Apple may have made in that release.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

64 Bit iOS Apps

[Todd Fabacher via use-livecode]

Apple - "When Apple launches iOS 11 in September, the company will drop
support for old 32-bit applications"

We have some apps still on LiveCode version 7.14. Is this ONLY 32 bit or is
it 64Bit? Will the App die if my users upgrade to iOS 11?

--Todd
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Dr. Hawkins via use-livecode]

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> You can now hear Clarus moofing for yourself:
> http://clarus.chez-alice.fr/
>

Or I could pop in one of my old developer CDs.

I bought my first CD drive when apple started shipping on them instead of
floppies.  $700, less 50% for being a developer, iirc.

And I think it was more like half-speed than single-speed.

I don't recall if it was on the floppies, but I'm pretty sure I gave up or
reuused those decades ago . . .

Back then, it was $600 year to be a developer, but they probably paid close
to that in printing, pressing, and shipping.

-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 06/08/2017 07:53 AM, Dr. Hawkins via use-livecode wrote:


moof!

(dating myself . . .)




You can now hear Clarus moofing for yourself:
http://clarus.chez-alice.fr/

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Mark Waddingham wrote:

Richard's repeated suggestion that such machines should be 'Linux-ised' 
still always was and continues to be an excellent suggestion. Remember 
that as as time goes by the amount of up to date software which *can* 
run on them will dwindle to nothing - for the same reason as we have had 
to look long and hard at our platform support and make changes.


There's another aspect of this worth considering as well:

One of the things Richmond noted, which we've all experienced, is that 
as GUI apps and OSes evolve their hardware requirement grow along with 
them.  Over enough time, GUIs can become sluggish.


These days much of the computing we use is done on servers, machines 
that have no GUI constraints since they need no GUI at all.


I've been meeting a lot of educators here in CA who've had great success 
teaching server admin and even security skills to learners at the high 
school level, and sometimes even in middle school.


Given that the role of servers is expected to only increase, and that 
networking in general is now a ubiquitous part of most app development, 
teaching these sorts of skills will only become ever more important 
going forward.


Right now Linux sys admin positions are plentiful and pay well.

And those with security certifications can earn six figures by their 
second year out of school.  Right now there are some 300,000 infosec 
jobs for US SMBs alone that can't be filled because of a shortage of 
qualified candidates.  We need more white hats in the field.


One of my friends organized a "capture the flag" competition at the 
SoCal Linux Expo, and we see similar infosec exercises becoming popular 
in a wide range of EDU contexts.


Best of all, these don't require great hardware.  Unencumbered by GUI 
requirements, servers really don't need much CPU power at all, and can 
operate with a fraction of the RAM modern GUIs need.


For older machines, server applications can make an ideal role for 
extending the useful life of older machines.


The cloud will only become an ever more pervasive part of our computing 
world, and nearly all of the best software needed to learn and create 
cloud systems is entirely free and open.


Server admin may not be for all learners, but for the "Computer Club" 
types it's a natural extension to also learning client-side development.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

Even California does not require you to support something beyond 10 years. 

Bob S


> On Jun 9, 2017, at 07:50 , Mark Waddingham via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'd also point out (again) that we are talking about machines which are now > 
> 10 years old (the last Mac which can only run up to 10.7 was released in 
> 2007).


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2017-06-08 21:16, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:

I'm afraid you misread my question. When I stated I was running MacOS
10.4 PPC it was not in expectation of your leaping
up and down and say "Well, yes, Just for you, Richmond, we're going to
set things up for future versions of LiveCode to
build Mac PPC standalones."


Strictly speaking your question was (essentially) "So you don't believe 
in backwards compatibility then?" and then segued into a repeat about 
your usage of PowerPC based Macs... May I suggest you make your 
questions a little clearer (and perhaps less perjorative ;)) then you 
might actually get answers to what you actually meant to ask, instead of 
what it sounded like you asked.


In terms of upping the minimum version requirement for 9.0 to 10.9 then 
using this as reference:


   
http://www.everymac.com/systems/by_capability/maximum-macos-supported.html


Intel Macs fall into four categories:

   - Those which can only run up to 10.6

   - Those which can only run up to 10.7

   - Those which can only run up to 10.11

   - Those which can run current Mac versions

Continuing to support 10.6 and 10.7 is *extremely* difficult due to both 
Cocoa APIs and C++ support. Indeed, continuing to do so would mean two 
things:


  1) Leveraging new APIs on the Mac platform would be much harder, 
meaning that will happen even slower than it has done up until now.


  2) We can't use newer versions of the C++ standard which not only 
makes writing code for the engine harder, but also means that the 
chances of bugs and vulnerabilities increase (because new methods of 
writing C++ which are available in C++11 allow you to do so in much 
'safer' ways). Basically more regressions, more bugs, slower evolution.


I'd also point out (again) that we are talking about machines which are 
now > 10 years old (the last Mac which can only run up to 10.7 was 
released in 2007).


Furthermore, as people have reiterated several times, those OSes are not 
supported by Apple and are hugely insecure in the modern climate. Whilst 
I get what you are saying about 'reusing old hardware' it does seems a 
bit 'off' for 'us' to be palming off old machines onto 'developing' 
countries which we wouldn't use ourselves for those very reasons.


Richard's repeated suggestion that such machines should be 'Linux-ised' 
still always was and continues to be an excellent suggestion. Remember 
that as as time goes by the amount of up to date software which *can* 
run on them will dwindle to nothing - for the same reason as we have had 
to look long and hard at our platform support and make changes.


All Macs which can run 10.8 can also run 10.9 - which is the new minimum 
version for 9. So, yes, there is a set of Intel Macs released between 
2005 and 2007 which will not be able to run 9; but the number of Macs 
which fall outside of this group is many many times larger and will, of 
course, continue to grow year on year.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

P.S. Please remember that LiveCode is open-source - 95% of changes we 
make to LiveCode as a whole go into the open-source repository. People 
are more than free to fork it and produce a 'legacy version' if they 
wish. A bit like a third-party group has done for FireFox.


--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Richmond Mathewson wrote:

> I don't see the problem as relating to machines that LiveCode might be
> deployed on, but as machines for which 32-bit
> standalones might be authored.

In my reading of Mark's comment, it doesn't seem that's going away, 
merely tha 64-bit-only builds will become the default:


   At the very least, we'll certainly be switching the IDE to 64-bit
   (by default) and make the SB build 64-bit only (by default) in 9+.
<http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2017-June/237921.html>

@Mark Waddingham:  If I misunderstand please correct me.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode]

I don't see the problem as relating to machines that LiveCode might be 
deployed on, but as machines for which 32-bit

standalones might be authored.

My highly theoretical scenario runs a bit likes this;

A number of schools in what are coyly called "third world countries" 
running old machines for content delivery; either in

schools or in, say, government offices.

An author of software for this scenario might have a 64-bit machine, but 
would need the ability to export for the target market.


As there are very many fully-functional 32-bit machines (whether Macs or 
IBM-compats) "out there" (and by "out there"
I mean outwith the slightly smug, self-satisfied circle of charmed 
countries quite incorrectly termed "Western" - Australia, western? -)
that are being put to good purpose rather than clogging up landfills and 
shafting the planet, this scenario does not seem

totally daft to me.

Admittedly, authors could use earlier versions of LiveCode that do 
produce 32-bit standalones to deliver the goods
(I still use 4.5 for stuff I run on a couple of PPC Macs), but, 
obviously, this cuts them off from new capabilities that will be built 
into newer

versions.

Richmond.

On 6/8/17 11:07 pm, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:

Microsoft suffered for years over backwards compatibility with DOS. MS wanted to move 
forward with their OS at a quicker pace but there were so many "critical" apps 
running under DOS that talked directly with the hardware, that no one wanted MS to 
depricate it. Windows 95 was supposed to be the first version of Windows to break the 
chain, but had to retain some functionality still. Even Windows 98 was still bound in 
some ways with DOS.

The point is, you have the right to expect backwards compatibility... to a 
point. Where is that point? Well let's see, how long ago did Apple stop 
suporting 32 bit OS? As far as I am concerned, that is the point beyond which 
backwards compatibility is gratis.

Bob S



On Jun 8, 2017, at 03:04 , Richmond via use-livecode 
<use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?

I, for one, run Mac Machines running MacOS 10.4 PPC.

A lot of these machine are being dumped in poor countries where they can be used
for good purposes.

Richmond.

On 08/06/17 09:19, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

On 2017-06-07 21:59, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:

I disagree as there are plenty of Macs "out there" in the worldthat
run 32-bit systems.

Not that LiveCode supports.


Far better to have BOTH possibilities checked as default.

Only if there existed a Mac which can run LiveCode but cannot run 64-bit apps - 
which is the case for LiveCode 9.x as it supports 10.9+.

Indeed it would be far better to have no possibility at all (simpler) - just 
build for 64-bit since...

64-bit support has been around since 10.6, at that time there were machines 
which could run 10.6 which were 32-bit only.

However, all macs which will run 10.7 will run 64-bit apps.

Therefore, if LiveCode only supports 10.7 and above, then LiveCode and any apps 
you build with it need only be 64-bit.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Dr. Hawkins via use-livecode]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> here is no logical reason a 64 bit app would run slower than a 32 bit one.


At least in the special case of needing to load data that gets stored in 64
bit words where 32 bit words would have been sufficient, you could end up
with twice as many memory accesses.


-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

Simple: Unicode support. It's not 64 bit that is slowing you down. Not sure how 
you make that connection. 

Bob S


> On Jun 8, 2017, at 09:08 , JosebaTELUR via use-livecode 
> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello:
> 
> Why LiveCode 8 or 9 in 64bits are more slwww than LiveCode 5.5.4 in my 
> new iMac with Sierra??
> Please LiveCode programmers move forward, not back  
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Joseba Aguayo Fernández
> (jagu...@telur.es)

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

Microsoft suffered for years over backwards compatibility with DOS. MS wanted 
to move forward with their OS at a quicker pace but there were so many 
"critical" apps running under DOS that talked directly with the hardware, that 
no one wanted MS to depricate it. Windows 95 was supposed to be the first 
version of Windows to break the chain, but had to retain some functionality 
still. Even Windows 98 was still bound in some ways with DOS. 

The point is, you have the right to expect backwards compatibility... to a 
point. Where is that point? Well let's see, how long ago did Apple stop 
suporting 32 bit OS? As far as I am concerned, that is the point beyond which 
backwards compatibility is gratis. 

Bob S


> On Jun 8, 2017, at 03:04 , Richmond via use-livecode 
> <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
> So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?
> 
> I, for one, run Mac Machines running MacOS 10.4 PPC.
> 
> A lot of these machine are being dumped in poor countries where they can be 
> used
> for good purposes.
> 
> Richmond.
> 
> On 08/06/17 09:19, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
>> On 2017-06-07 21:59, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
>>> I disagree as there are plenty of Macs "out there" in the worldthat
>>> run 32-bit systems.
>> 
>> Not that LiveCode supports.
>> 
>>> Far better to have BOTH possibilities checked as default.
>> 
>> Only if there existed a Mac which can run LiveCode but cannot run 64-bit 
>> apps - which is the case for LiveCode 9.x as it supports 10.9+.
>> 
>> Indeed it would be far better to have no possibility at all (simpler) - just 
>> build for 64-bit since...
>> 
>> 64-bit support has been around since 10.6, at that time there were machines 
>> which could run 10.6 which were 32-bit only.
>> 
>> However, all macs which will run 10.7 will run 64-bit apps.
>> 
>> Therefore, if LiveCode only supports 10.7 and above, then LiveCode and any 
>> apps you build with it need only be 64-bit.
>> 
>> Warmest Regards,
>> 
>> Mark.
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode]

On 6/8/17 6:56 pm, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:

Roger Eller wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> Using a supported version of an OS that's receiving critical security
>> patches along with other updates is the safest choice, and one that
>> could not be more economical given a purchase price for most Linux
>> distros of zero.
...
>
> But even with PPC Linux to revive old hardware, if LiveCode usage is
> your end game, there isn't a PPC Linux version (or is there?).

Good point, touching on two aspects:

Security: Not only do OSes need to be updated to remain secure, but 
from time to time apps do too.


Viability:  When a user base for a given configuration is sufficiently 
low, it may be difficult to find resources to maintain it.


IIRC no computer running an OS LC supports has shipped with a PPC 
processor in about 12 years (Apple switched in 2005).  While I'm a big 
fan of minimizing landfills by extending the life of older hardware as 
much as practical, that's the key word, "practical".


If LC plays a critical role on a PPC machine revived with a supported 
OS, it will require that someone compile a version of LC for that CPU 
and OS.


At the moment, AFAIK the size of the audience for such a build is 
currently 1.


The size of the audience for a Linux PPC build is probably ZERO as I am 
not interested in one
(see my recent posting on Lubuntu on a PPC), and, while I am sure there 
are thousands of closet
PPC Linux users out there dying because they are deprived of LiveCode . 
. . .


This is a redundant discussion.

Richmond.


So clearly if this were to happen at all it would have to be a 
community project.


Given the time required, it may be more cost-effective to either 
replace the machines with any Intel-based system that can support 
modern OSes (here in the States many EDU orgs get donated Core Duo and 
Core 2 Duo machines from local businesses who've upgraded), or replace 
the LiveCode role on those machines with something that supports PPC.


With the latter option, though, it may buy only a little time but not 
much:  since no new mainstream computers have been made with PPC CPUs 
in more than a decade, it's only a matter of time before more and more 
projects stop supporting that architecture.  Over time the range of 
supported software for PPC can only get ever smaller.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode]

Has anyone apart from me actually tried running Linux on a Mac PPC machine.

A few years ago I installed Lubuntu on a MacMini PPC and tried to build 
a PPC Linuxversion of Livecode,

and got nowehere.

Quite apart from my sad efforts at that, the machine was as slow as wet 
cement; functionally useless.


Linux LiveCode standalones do not run on Linux PPC distros.

Running 10.4 on a MacMini PPC is just fine unless one has a desire to 
hook up to the internet, at which point there is a (slight)

risk of complications.

Richmond.

On 6/8/17 5:56 pm, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:

Richmond wrote:

> So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?
>
> I, for one, run Mac Machines running MacOS 10.4 PPC.
>
> A lot of these machine are being dumped in poor countries where they
> can be used for good purposes.

I can appreciate the desire to get full life out of hardware, and 
indeed it would be nice of Apple continued supporting older machines.


But the choice to stop supporting older hardware and OS versions is 
Apple's, not LiveCode's.


Moreover, there is a solution available to extend the life of 
otherwise-unsupported hardware: Linux.


Using a supported version of an OS that's receiving critical security 
patches along with other updates is the safest choice, and one that 
could not be more economical given a purchase price for most Linux 
distros of zero.


For hardware that old you may find Lubuntu more satisfying than Ubuntu 
or other distros with steeper RAM and graphics requirements.  Both 
Alejandro and myself use Lubuntu and have found LiveCode runs quite 
well on it.


In fact, if you use my LiveNet plugin (bundled in the IDE; see 
Development -> Plugins -> GoLiveNet) the feeds on the second card 
there are aggregated, packaged, and posted every five minutes by a 
LiveCode app running on my Lubuntu box.


You can find more info on Lubuntu for PPC here:




___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode]

On 6/8/17 1:19 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

On 2017-06-08 12:04, Richmond via use-livecode wrote:

So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?


Seriously - you ask that question?

LiveCode 9 still happily runs stacks which were written in the early 
days of MetaCard.


We are *extremely* careful not to break existing scripts and stacks - 
we either do accidentally (if that is so, we fix those issues with a 
high degree of priority); if intentionally then it is only for a very 
good reason.



I, for one, run Mac Machines running MacOS 10.4 PPC.


LiveCode 6.6.5 was the last version of LiveCode to support PowerPC on 
Mac - so given we are talking about LiveCode *9* you point is entirely 
moot.


A lot of these machine are being dumped in poor countries where they 
can be used

for good purposes.


I appreciate that, but since Apple haven't supported PowerPC for a 
very long time, and their toolchains (the things we need to use to 
build the engine) haven't for a very long time - there's little hope 
of PowerPC being resurrected in a future LiveCode version unless 
someone stumps up a very very large amount of cash (we are talking on 
the order of $100,000+ as a start, and then a significant amount for 
ongoing maintenance) and even then finding reliable hardware which has 
the specs needed to do engine development is becoming increasingly 
difficult, if not impossible.


I'm afraid you misread my question. When I stated I was running MacOS 
10.4 PPC it was not in expectation of your leaping
up and down and say "Well, yes, Just for you, Richmond, we're going to 
set things up for future versions of LiveCode to

build Mac PPC standalones."

What I was concerned about was people running Early Intel Macintoshes 
that have 32-bit processors.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.



Best, Richmond.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode]

Tut, tut, Roger: you forgot the kilt!

Richmond.

On 6/8/17 1:34 pm, Roger Eller via use-livecode wrote:

-- In a dark back office, Richmond, wearing dark glasses, a fedora, and a
tan trenchcoat, dumps a large bag of Monopoly money onto the table.  Marks
eyes are now like saucers.  "Moot", Richmond says under his breath, then
leaves the room with a strut, as if he is carrying the world in his pocket.
--

~Roger

On Jun 8, 2017 6:19 AM, "Mark Waddingham via use-livecode" <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:


On 2017-06-08 12:04, Richmond via use-livecode wrote:


So, backwards compatibility does not interest you?


Seriously - you ask that question?

LiveCode 9 still happily runs stacks which were written in the early days
of MetaCard.

We are *extremely* careful not to break existing scripts and stacks - we
either do accidentally (if that is so, we fix those issues with a high
degree of priority); if intentionally then it is only for a very good
reason.

I, for one, run Mac Machines running MacOS 10.4 PPC.
LiveCode 6.6.5 was the last version of LiveCode to support PowerPC on Mac
- so given we are talking about LiveCode *9* you point is entirely moot.

A lot of these machine are being dumped in poor countries where they can

be used
for good purposes.


I appreciate that, but since Apple haven't supported PowerPC for a very
long time, and their toolchains (the things we need to use to build the
engine) haven't for a very long time - there's little hope of PowerPC being
resurrected in a future LiveCode version unless someone stumps up a very
very large amount of cash (we are talking on the order of $100,000+ as a
start, and then a significant amount for ongoing maintenance) and even then
finding reliable hardware which has the specs needed to do engine
development is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: 64 bit desktop apps

[JosebaTELUR via use-livecode]

Hello:

Why LiveCode 8 or 9 in 64bits are more slwww than LiveCode 5.5.4 in my new 
iMac with Sierra??
Please LiveCode programmers move forward, not back  

Un saludo.

Joseba Aguayo Fernández
(jagu...@telur.es)


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode