Re: LC/macOS App Store
Yep, you're correct. It says 64bit. I must have been blind. thanks! Op 11-11-2018 om 14:59 schreef Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode: The release notes for 9.0.0 stable state otherwise as quoted below referring directly to the IDE, not Standalones. To quote: The *IDE* is now 64-bit by default on Mac I also checked on my versions here and it is definitely 64bit so I’m not sure why your machine is not saying the same. Try this script for the file path to your LC ide in the terminal. lipo -info /Applications/LiveCode\ Indy\ 9.0.2\ \(rc\ 1\).app/Contents/MacOS/LiveCode-Indy For me it shows: are: i386 x86_64 Demonstrating both 32 and 64 bit. The IDE itself is just a rev script that runs within the LC overall environment so would not be 64 or 32 bit itself. Sean On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 11:25, JJS via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: Yes i know the standalone can be 64bit. I also know how to check in Macos if a program is 64bit. I was talking about the IDE itself. That's 32-bit. Op 10-11-2018 om 22:41 schreef Pi Digital via use-livecode: https://downloads.livecode.com/livecode/9_0_0/LiveCodeNotes-9_0_0.pdf#page32 To quote: The IDE is now 64-bit by default on Mac Moreover, the "Build for Mac OS X 64-bit" is checked by default on newly created stacks in the standalone settings for OS X. Existing stacks will retain their current settings. Check your settings perhaps. You can double check by going to Apple>AboutThisMac>SystemReport(button)>Software>Applications>LiveCode 9.0.2> and look at 64-bit to see if it says yes. If it does, nothing to worry about. Sean Cole Pi Digital On 10 Nov 2018, at 19:45, JJS via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: By the way. In Mojave i got a a message "you are running a 32bit program" (the livecode ide). Within a certain amount of time it's going to "force" to use 64bit programs ___ 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: LC/macOS App Store
The release notes for 9.0.0 stable state otherwise as quoted below referring directly to the IDE, not Standalones. > To quote: >> The *IDE* is now 64-bit by default on Mac I also checked on my versions here and it is definitely 64bit so I’m not sure why your machine is not saying the same. Try this script for the file path to your LC ide in the terminal. lipo -info /Applications/LiveCode\ Indy\ 9.0.2\ \(rc\ 1\).app/Contents/MacOS/LiveCode-Indy For me it shows: are: i386 x86_64 Demonstrating both 32 and 64 bit. The IDE itself is just a rev script that runs within the LC overall environment so would not be 64 or 32 bit itself. Sean On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 11:25, JJS via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Yes i know the standalone can be 64bit. > > I also know how to check in Macos if a program is 64bit. > > I was talking about the IDE itself. That's 32-bit. > > > Op 10-11-2018 om 22:41 schreef Pi Digital via use-livecode: > > > https://downloads.livecode.com/livecode/9_0_0/LiveCodeNotes-9_0_0.pdf#page32 > > > > To quote: > >> The IDE is now 64-bit by default on Mac > >> Moreover, the "Build for Mac OS X 64-bit" is checked by default on > newly created stacks in the standalone settings for OS X. Existing stacks > will retain their current settings. > > > > Check your settings perhaps. You can double check by going to > Apple>AboutThisMac>SystemReport(button)>Software>Applications>LiveCode > 9.0.2> and look at 64-bit to see if it says yes. If it does, nothing to > worry about. > > > > Sean Cole > > Pi Digital > > > >> On 10 Nov 2018, at 19:45, JJS via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > >> > >> By the way. > >> > >> In Mojave i got a a message "you are running a 32bit program" (the > livecode ide). > >> > >> Within a certain amount of time it's going to "force" to use 64bit > programs > > ___ > > 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: LC/macOS App Store
Yes i know the standalone can be 64bit. I also know how to check in Macos if a program is 64bit. I was talking about the IDE itself. That's 32-bit. Op 10-11-2018 om 22:41 schreef Pi Digital via use-livecode: https://downloads.livecode.com/livecode/9_0_0/LiveCodeNotes-9_0_0.pdf#page32 To quote: The IDE is now 64-bit by default on Mac Moreover, the "Build for Mac OS X 64-bit" is checked by default on newly created stacks in the standalone settings for OS X. Existing stacks will retain their current settings. Check your settings perhaps. You can double check by going to Apple>AboutThisMac>SystemReport(button)>Software>Applications>LiveCode 9.0.2> and look at 64-bit to see if it says yes. If it does, nothing to worry about. Sean Cole Pi Digital On 10 Nov 2018, at 19:45, JJS via use-livecode wrote: By the way. In Mojave i got a a message "you are running a 32bit program" (the livecode ide). Within a certain amount of time it's going to "force" to use 64bit programs ___ 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: LC/macOS App Store
https://downloads.livecode.com/livecode/9_0_0/LiveCodeNotes-9_0_0.pdf#page32 To quote: > The IDE is now 64-bit by default on Mac > Moreover, the "Build for Mac OS X 64-bit" is checked by default on newly > created stacks in the standalone settings for OS X. Existing stacks will > retain their current settings. Check your settings perhaps. You can double check by going to Apple>AboutThisMac>SystemReport(button)>Software>Applications>LiveCode 9.0.2> and look at 64-bit to see if it says yes. If it does, nothing to worry about. Sean Cole Pi Digital > On 10 Nov 2018, at 19:45, JJS via use-livecode > wrote: > > By the way. > > In Mojave i got a a message "you are running a 32bit program" (the livecode > ide). > > Within a certain amount of time it's going to "force" to use 64bit programs ___ 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: LC/macOS App Store
JJS wrote: > In Mojave i got a a message "you are running a 32bit program" (the > livecode ide). > > Within a certain amount of time it's going to "force" to use 64bit > programs Yep, and the team has come through: several months ago they delivered v9.0, which now allows standalone building for 64-bit macOS systems. It's now even better with v9.0.2rc1 released yesterday: https://downloads.livecode.com/livecode/ -- 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: LC/macOS App Store
By the way. In Mojave i got a a message "you are running a 32bit program" (the livecode ide). Within a certain amount of time it's going to "force" to use 64bit programs Op 10-11-2018 om 20:08 schreef Richard Gaskin via use-livecode: Bob Sneidar wrote: > People cannot remember commands, especially not terminal commands, > with all the arguments and caveats and different ways to put it all > together. For end-users, the awareness of that principle is very powerful. But where are we, here in this discussion? On a mailing list for programmers using a rich language with 3,000+ tokens to memorize. :) Just as LiveCode is the way we build applications, Terminal is the way we manage our systems. Locally, you can get away with never automating anything in bash (though why wouldn't a programmer want to take advantage of automation?). But for working with servers, bash is the lingua franca of sysadmin, the foundation of efficient work to handle all the essentials and also make systems more robust, secure, and redeployable. Besides, most servers have no GUI, so Terminal is your only UI. As programmers, we like the expressiveness of text and the opportunity to learn. -- 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: LC/macOS App Store
Bob Sneidar wrote: > People cannot remember commands, especially not terminal commands, > with all the arguments and caveats and different ways to put it all > together. For end-users, the awareness of that principle is very powerful. But where are we, here in this discussion? On a mailing list for programmers using a rich language with 3,000+ tokens to memorize. :) Just as LiveCode is the way we build applications, Terminal is the way we manage our systems. Locally, you can get away with never automating anything in bash (though why wouldn't a programmer want to take advantage of automation?). But for working with servers, bash is the lingua franca of sysadmin, the foundation of efficient work to handle all the essentials and also make systems more robust, secure, and redeployable. Besides, most servers have no GUI, so Terminal is your only UI. As programmers, we like the expressiveness of text and the opportunity to learn. -- 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: the beauty of the command line tools (a side note from Re: LC/macOS App Store)
In the release notes of LC is a line that states: LC is actually a command line tool. Op 10-11-2018 om 13:18 schreef Pi Digital via use-livecode: Hi Just to follow on from Andre, you can of course also run terminal scripts from LC. That’s exactly what I did in the aforementioned OSX Package Maker (soon to be reissued as the iOS/macOS Package Maker). You ‘could’ make a GUI for every terminal command available including every nuance and parameter. Indeed, Apple could do this for ‘every’ Unix/Terminal command. But can you imagine the complaints that would come with it with regards bloat ware. But in addition to this is the thought that terminal stuff, much like LC stuff, can combine multiple commands and functions together into one line of script. Can you imagine if LC was entirely GUI based. Of course not as it would make it somewhat impractical. Not to say that it is impossible as is demonstrated by the Unreal Engine coding environment (which is pretty cool actually, albeit a bit cumbersome). Take, also the simplicity of copy/paste that would not be possible in a gui. All apple have to do is give an example of a line of script where we replace out the various parameters to suit our circumstance. I say Bravo to Apple for making this still available and a common standard for ‘us’ (bearing in mind this kind of stuff is aimed at coders/developers who are used to it as opposed to the ‘grannies and grandpas’ who barely use a mouse let alone the keyboard). Sorry I was unable to sort out the Package maker before this. As some of you are aware I went through a pretty severe emotional hiccup midway through this year. Kee (whom I let down the most) managed to pick up a lot of the slack producing the guide for us all. No doubt Apple will continue to make changes to the way things are done. But that is the nature of Soft wares. They are not rigid and inflexible. It is a good thing. As much as it is a pain, there’s nearly always a resultant gain. Go with it, adapt, and evolve. That’s progress! All the best to you all. Sean Cole Pi Digital On 10 Nov 2018, at 11:01, Andre Alves Garzia via use-livecode wrote: Bob, I am hijacking this thread to express some personal opinions about the terminal, it is not related to the topic of the original message but a different perspective on the subject you brought up on your reply. When I first for my mac (A G3 running Mac OS 8.x) and started developing for it, my first thought was: "Where is the terminal?!", the lack of terminal was one of the main reason I struggled with development in the mac for some time because, IMHO there is a beauty to terminal tools that is no longer available to the current incarnation of macOS (but was present in earlier versions, more about it later). The main advantage for terminal tools is composability, which is at the heart of the UNIX philosophy and remember (the current) "macOS is UNIX". Having little tools that compose with one another to execute whatever workflow you need. You generate certificates with one tool, you sign binaries with another, you pipe the result of one command into the other and with some clever scripting you automate your whole flow. The power of UNIX is this toolbox of little tools and the scripting that goes on top of them to compose them into pieces more powerful and featureful than each individual component. Thats why in the terminal you can use a single line to post something to a web API server, get a response, decode it, parse its JSON reply, reason about it and extract data, just by piping from "curl" to "jq" to "awk" or "grep" or "wc" or whatever you need. GUI tools don't compose. You need to ship new tools to add more features or you need to update the current ones. Doing web stuff on classic MacOS was tricky as I couldn't rely on my usual toolset of little UNIX gizmos (I learned about MPW and other stuff later). The solution to make GUI tools composable is AppleScript of course, and I know many who are reading this email thought about that when reading the second paragraph. With AppleScript we could have all the convenience of GUI, the kind of easy and amazing UX that Bob was talking about, and yet be composable thus making each GUI tool more capable than its features alone. And for a while, this was fantastic but AppleScript is no longer in favor at Apple and most Third-Party developers seem to have forgotten it. Each power-user oriented app that allows scripting appears to be shipping a different solution, so the dream of AppleScript is lost, it was also never cross-platform, but the little rusty UNIX toolkit still works, almost 60 years later, and it is cross-platform-ish. So the Terminal allows Apple and others to reuse good tools from GNU, *BSD and others and build the workflow they need. Little terminal tools are the only way to automation these days, all the other solutions require more buy-in from 3rd party developers or reinventing the
Re: the beauty of the command line tools (a side note from Re: LC/macOS App Store)
Hi Just to follow on from Andre, you can of course also run terminal scripts from LC. That’s exactly what I did in the aforementioned OSX Package Maker (soon to be reissued as the iOS/macOS Package Maker). You ‘could’ make a GUI for every terminal command available including every nuance and parameter. Indeed, Apple could do this for ‘every’ Unix/Terminal command. But can you imagine the complaints that would come with it with regards bloat ware. But in addition to this is the thought that terminal stuff, much like LC stuff, can combine multiple commands and functions together into one line of script. Can you imagine if LC was entirely GUI based. Of course not as it would make it somewhat impractical. Not to say that it is impossible as is demonstrated by the Unreal Engine coding environment (which is pretty cool actually, albeit a bit cumbersome). Take, also the simplicity of copy/paste that would not be possible in a gui. All apple have to do is give an example of a line of script where we replace out the various parameters to suit our circumstance. I say Bravo to Apple for making this still available and a common standard for ‘us’ (bearing in mind this kind of stuff is aimed at coders/developers who are used to it as opposed to the ‘grannies and grandpas’ who barely use a mouse let alone the keyboard). Sorry I was unable to sort out the Package maker before this. As some of you are aware I went through a pretty severe emotional hiccup midway through this year. Kee (whom I let down the most) managed to pick up a lot of the slack producing the guide for us all. No doubt Apple will continue to make changes to the way things are done. But that is the nature of Soft wares. They are not rigid and inflexible. It is a good thing. As much as it is a pain, there’s nearly always a resultant gain. Go with it, adapt, and evolve. That’s progress! All the best to you all. Sean Cole Pi Digital > On 10 Nov 2018, at 11:01, Andre Alves Garzia via use-livecode > wrote: > > Bob, > > I am hijacking this thread to express some personal opinions about the > terminal, it is not related to the topic of the original message but a > different perspective on the subject you brought up on your reply. > > When I first for my mac (A G3 running Mac OS 8.x) and started developing for > it, my first thought was: "Where is the terminal?!", the lack of terminal was > one of the main reason I struggled with development in the mac for some time > because, IMHO there is a beauty to terminal tools that is no longer available > to the current incarnation of macOS (but was present in earlier versions, > more about it later). > > The main advantage for terminal tools is composability, which is at the heart > of the UNIX philosophy and remember (the current) "macOS is UNIX". Having > little tools that compose with one another to execute whatever workflow you > need. You generate certificates with one tool, you sign binaries with > another, you pipe the result of one command into the other and with some > clever scripting you automate your whole flow. The power of UNIX is this > toolbox of little tools and the scripting that goes on top of them to compose > them into pieces more powerful and featureful than each individual component. > Thats why in the terminal you can use a single line to post something to a > web API server, get a response, decode it, parse its JSON reply, reason about > it and extract data, just by piping from "curl" to "jq" to "awk" or "grep" or > "wc" or whatever you need. > > GUI tools don't compose. You need to ship new tools to add more features or > you need to update the current ones. Doing web stuff on classic MacOS was > tricky as I couldn't rely on my usual toolset of little UNIX gizmos (I > learned about MPW and other stuff later). > > The solution to make GUI tools composable is AppleScript of course, and I > know many who are reading this email thought about that when reading the > second paragraph. With AppleScript we could have all the convenience of GUI, > the kind of easy and amazing UX that Bob was talking about, and yet be > composable thus making each GUI tool more capable than its features alone. > And for a while, this was fantastic but AppleScript is no longer in favor at > Apple and most Third-Party developers seem to have forgotten it. Each > power-user oriented app that allows scripting appears to be shipping a > different solution, so the dream of AppleScript is lost, it was also never > cross-platform, but the little rusty UNIX toolkit still works, almost 60 > years later, and it is cross-platform-ish. So the Terminal allows Apple and > others to reuse good tools from GNU, *BSD and others and build the workflow > they need. > > Little terminal tools are the only way to automation these days, all the > other solutions require more buy-in from 3rd party developers or reinventing > the wheel. Thats why it pays of to learn just
the beauty of the command line tools (a side note from Re: LC/macOS App Store)
Bob, I am hijacking this thread to express some personal opinions about the terminal, it is not related to the topic of the original message but a different perspective on the subject you brought up on your reply. When I first for my mac (A G3 running Mac OS 8.x) and started developing for it, my first thought was: "Where is the terminal?!", the lack of terminal was one of the main reason I struggled with development in the mac for some time because, IMHO there is a beauty to terminal tools that is no longer available to the current incarnation of macOS (but was present in earlier versions, more about it later). The main advantage for terminal tools is composability, which is at the heart of the UNIX philosophy and remember (the current) "macOS is UNIX". Having little tools that compose with one another to execute whatever workflow you need. You generate certificates with one tool, you sign binaries with another, you pipe the result of one command into the other and with some clever scripting you automate your whole flow. The power of UNIX is this toolbox of little tools and the scripting that goes on top of them to compose them into pieces more powerful and featureful than each individual component. Thats why in the terminal you can use a single line to post something to a web API server, get a response, decode it, parse its JSON reply, reason about it and extract data, just by piping from "curl" to "jq" to "awk" or "grep" or "wc" or whatever you need. GUI tools don't compose. You need to ship new tools to add more features or you need to update the current ones. Doing web stuff on classic MacOS was tricky as I couldn't rely on my usual toolset of little UNIX gizmos (I learned about MPW and other stuff later). The solution to make GUI tools composable is AppleScript of course, and I know many who are reading this email thought about that when reading the second paragraph. With AppleScript we could have all the convenience of GUI, the kind of easy and amazing UX that Bob was talking about, and yet be composable thus making each GUI tool more capable than its features alone. And for a while, this was fantastic but AppleScript is no longer in favor at Apple and most Third-Party developers seem to have forgotten it. Each power-user oriented app that allows scripting appears to be shipping a different solution, so the dream of AppleScript is lost, it was also never cross-platform, but the little rusty UNIX toolkit still works, almost 60 years later, and it is cross-platform-ish. So the Terminal allows Apple and others to reuse good tools from GNU, *BSD and others and build the workflow they need. Little terminal tools are the only way to automation these days, all the other solutions require more buy-in from 3rd party developers or reinventing the wheel. Thats why it pays of to learn just a bit of terminal stuff, so that you too can build those little composable things, so that you too can benefit from 60 years of little tools that do the job. Still, I miss AppleScript, and Frontier, and DreamCard, and MacOS Classic... Om om andre PS: I am no longer a Apple user, so if by any chance AppleScript is back, I am not aware of it, sorry. On 11/9/2018 10:49 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote: It's funny you should say that. Long ago when the first Apple MacIntoshes came out, I fell in love with the GUI simply because I could use a computer without having to type in commands. For years, I would not even work with a PC, because all their was to work with was DOS, and even when Windows came out, it was really DOS pretending to be a GUI. Later, when I went from being a hobbyist to doing real IT for a living, I was s exasperated with PCs because reformatting a hard drive was an evening's work, especially if the manufacturer wasn't real clear about how many sectors, blocks, etc in the sticker on the drive! But I always had Macs to look to, where I could say, "See? NO COMMAND LINE! THAT's how to do computing nowadays!" Now, even with all the advances Microsoft has made in their OS, some things can *only* be done from a command line, and I think this is just laziness on the part of developers. Apple seems to have fallen in to this developer malaise, where it's easier to just write some terminal code and tell people, "Just type this command..." People cannot remember commands, especially not terminal commands, with all the arguments and caveats and different ways to put it all together. Apple used to be, "The computer for the rest of us." Now it's just another computer. Bob S On Nov 9, 2018, at 14:27 , Rick Harrison via use-livecode wrote: Hi Kee, Thanks for that. Although I’ve been down that lane for sometime now. Why Apple keeps making things worse and worse instead of the other way around I don’t know. In principle, I believe that no LiveCoder should ever have to be subjected to using the Terminal. Ideally we should have a stack
Re: LC/macOS App Store
I agree that the LiveCode Application Builder should handle all the details. The stacks that others have built work great … until they don’t. That’s why my instructions are all Terminal based. If something errors out, you can see the error and perhaps deal with it. When everything is hidden behind a stack, making it work is more difficult, in my opinion. Kee > On Nov 9, 2018, at 2:27 PM, Rick Harrison via use-livecode > wrote: > > Hi Kee, > > Thanks for that. Although I’ve been down that > lane for sometime now. Why Apple keeps > making things worse and worse instead of > the other way around I don’t know. > > In principle, I believe that no LiveCoder should > ever have to be subjected to using the Terminal. > Ideally we should have a stack that pulls everything > together for our LiveCode users so they don’t have > to even touch it. > > I will let you know what I find out if anything. > > Rick ___ 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: LC/macOS App Store
It's funny you should say that. Long ago when the first Apple MacIntoshes came out, I fell in love with the GUI simply because I could use a computer without having to type in commands. For years, I would not even work with a PC, because all their was to work with was DOS, and even when Windows came out, it was really DOS pretending to be a GUI. Later, when I went from being a hobbyist to doing real IT for a living, I was s exasperated with PCs because reformatting a hard drive was an evening's work, especially if the manufacturer wasn't real clear about how many sectors, blocks, etc in the sticker on the drive! But I always had Macs to look to, where I could say, "See? NO COMMAND LINE! THAT's how to do computing nowadays!" Now, even with all the advances Microsoft has made in their OS, some things can *only* be done from a command line, and I think this is just laziness on the part of developers. Apple seems to have fallen in to this developer malaise, where it's easier to just write some terminal code and tell people, "Just type this command..." People cannot remember commands, especially not terminal commands, with all the arguments and caveats and different ways to put it all together. Apple used to be, "The computer for the rest of us." Now it's just another computer. Bob S > On Nov 9, 2018, at 14:27 , Rick Harrison via use-livecode > wrote: > > Hi Kee, > > Thanks for that. Although I’ve been down that > lane for sometime now. Why Apple keeps > making things worse and worse instead of > the other way around I don’t know. > > In principle, I believe that no LiveCoder should > ever have to be subjected to using the Terminal. > Ideally we should have a stack that pulls everything > together for our LiveCode users so they don’t have > to even touch it. > > I will let you know what I find out if anything. > > Rick ___ 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: LC/macOS App Store
Hi Kee, Thanks for that. Although I’ve been down that lane for sometime now. Why Apple keeps making things worse and worse instead of the other way around I don’t know. In principle, I believe that no LiveCoder should ever have to be subjected to using the Terminal. Ideally we should have a stack that pulls everything together for our LiveCode users so they don’t have to even touch it. I will let you know what I find out if anything. Rick > On Nov 9, 2018, at 3:44 PM, kee nethery via use-livecode > wrote: > > The URL to start the enrollment process to be an Apple Developer is > https://developer.apple.com/programs/enroll/ > > Will add that to the lesson, thanks > Kee > >> On Nov 9, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Rick Harrison via use-livecode >> wrote: >> >> Hi Kee, >> >> If you had read far enough down on my original message you >> would have seen that I have looked at that lesson. >> >> One of the important things it says is: >> To upload to the App Store you need an Apple Developer >> account and corresponding developer certificates. This article >> does not cover that process. >> >> (I think we should include that important step if possible.) >> >> I will attempt to work through it one more time anyway, >> and get back to you after I’m sure I have wasted enough >> time and energy. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rick >> >> >> >>> On Nov 9, 2018, at 2:43 PM, kee nethery via use-livecode >>> wrote: >>> >>> Did you try this checklist? If you did and it didn’t work, please let me >>> know so I can fix it. >>> >>> Kee Nethery >>> >>> http://lessons.livecode.com/m/4071/l/876834-signing-and-uploading-apps-to-the-mac-app-store >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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: LC/macOS App Store
The URL to start the enrollment process to be an Apple Developer is https://developer.apple.com/programs/enroll/ Will add that to the lesson, thanks Kee > On Nov 9, 2018, at 12:17 PM, Rick Harrison via use-livecode > wrote: > > Hi Kee, > > If you had read far enough down on my original message you > would have seen that I have looked at that lesson. > > One of the important things it says is: > To upload to the App Store you need an Apple Developer > account and corresponding developer certificates. This article > does not cover that process. > > (I think we should include that important step if possible.) > > I will attempt to work through it one more time anyway, > and get back to you after I’m sure I have wasted enough > time and energy. > > Thanks, > > Rick > > > >> On Nov 9, 2018, at 2:43 PM, kee nethery via use-livecode >> wrote: >> >> Did you try this checklist? If you did and it didn’t work, please let me >> know so I can fix it. >> >> Kee Nethery >> >> http://lessons.livecode.com/m/4071/l/876834-signing-and-uploading-apps-to-the-mac-app-store >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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: LC/macOS App Store
Hi Kee, If you had read far enough down on my original message you would have seen that I have looked at that lesson. One of the important things it says is: To upload to the App Store you need an Apple Developer account and corresponding developer certificates. This article does not cover that process. (I think we should include that important step if possible.) I will attempt to work through it one more time anyway, and get back to you after I’m sure I have wasted enough time and energy. Thanks, Rick > On Nov 9, 2018, at 2:43 PM, kee nethery via use-livecode > wrote: > > Did you try this checklist? If you did and it didn’t work, please let me know > so I can fix it. > > Kee Nethery > > http://lessons.livecode.com/m/4071/l/876834-signing-and-uploading-apps-to-the-mac-app-store > > > > ___ > 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: LC/macOS App Store
Did you try this checklist? If you did and it didn’t work, please let me know so I can fix it. Kee Nethery http://lessons.livecode.com/m/4071/l/876834-signing-and-uploading-apps-to-the-mac-app-store ___ 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
LC/macOS App Store
Dear LiveCoders, I am using LiveCode Indy 9.0.1, Xcode 9.3, and macOS 10.13.6 High Sierra. I have an old LC 32 bit iOS app that was removed from the App Store because it was 32 bit. I was so mad at Apple for screwing me on it that I stayed away from it for quite a while. Recently I decided that I would try to update it as a macOS app. After doing my conversion it was time to get back into creating profiles etc. I created a brand new profile for it and added the name mac as a suffix. I tried to use the OSXPackageMaker by Pi Digital, but it doesn’t find the new profile I just created. When I looked in Xcode 9.3 it told me that my brand new profile was Deprecated! After looking all over the internet the suggestion is to let Xcode automatically manage everything. Yet our LiveCode environment seems to encourage a manual process. I have looked at: http://lessons.livecode.com/m/4071/l/876834-signing-and-uploading-apps-to-the-mac-app-store https://www.raywenderlich.com/120-how-to-submit-an-app-to-apple-from-no-account-to-app-store-part-1 Mac AppStore Checklist.txt Everything is one hot mess now! I don’t know how we can possibly expect anyone new to LiveCode is going to find their way successfully through the jungle that has been created without adequate up-to-date step by step instructions with images. This somehow needs to become a part of the LC review and update cycle. Anyway, should I let Xcode automatically manage my profiles? Other suggestions? Whatever happened to the good old days when one could just create a standalone, zip it, and upload it to some distribution website? Boy do I ever miss the good old days! Thanks in advance! Rick ___ 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
