Now that I have Revolution up and running and Metacard 2.7 up and
running I thought I'd open my biggest fully finished project and see
how it fared with both.
With all the new additions to Revolution since my version, I thought
I'd work in Revolution for a little while to help me learn what
As for the Revolution IDE itself, I am impressed with the changes
since the last time I looked at it. They have definitely refined it
a lot. It is more concise than it was. Not as spread out.
Everything you do does not open yet another window :-)
I must go off to the icky work today. So I
On Aug 31, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Shari wrote:
Now that I have Revolution up and running and Metacard 2.7 up and
running I thought I'd open my biggest fully finished project and
see how it fared with both.
...
The stack opens. But the Revolution IDE does not like that I have
standard stacks
Shari wrote:
As for the Revolution IDE itself, I am impressed with the changes since
the last time I looked at it. They have definitely refined it a lot.
It is more concise than it was. Not as spread out.
Everything you do does not open yet another window :-)
I must go off to the icky
Hello Richard and y'all,
... so it would seem there would be room
for an open source alternative -- maybe.
Hear! Hear! ;-))
We are on the same wavelength in this regard. :)
As you all know, I'm making steady progress towards
this goal, e.g. an open-source multi-platform xCard
that takes
Aaargh! Richard... Noo! And thrice nooo!
I am very, VERY happily using mc 2.66 and 2.72. We may be small in number,
but we are here! I have yet to apply myself to OSX2.7 stacks or standAlones
(will have to refer to the notes), but so far I still remain wed to the mc IDE
with no plans
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaargh! Richard... Noo! And thrice nooo!
I am very, VERY happily using mc 2.66 and 2.72. We may be small in number,
but we are here! I have yet to apply myself to OSX2.7 stacks or standAlones
(will have to refer to the notes), but so far I still remain wed to
Sorry, Richard, I did mean to reply in the affirmative: a one-click
solution for setting up MC would be welcome.
On 31-Aug-06, at 11:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be interesting to learn of anything you find there that's
attractive. MC is getting old, and the more they make
Alain Farmer wrote:
Hello Richard and y'all,
... so it would seem there would be room
for an open source alternative -- maybe.
Hear! Hear! ;-))
We are on the same wavelength in this regard. :)
As you all know, I'm making steady progress towards
this goal, e.g. an open-source
On Aug 31, 2006, at 1:00 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
It would be interesting to learn of anything you find there that's
attractive. MC is getting old, and the more they make radical changes
to the engine the harder it is to set up. We can easily fix the setup
stuff, but as my last question
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Rev-based IDEs address an ultra-tiny market that's already fragmented as
it is. I still can't get much work done in Rev, and I hear most of my
clients curse as they use it, but if there's only three or four of us
still using MC it does rather raise questions about the
On Aug 31, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
In addition to the sort of layout and construction tasks the MC and
Rev IDEs have traditionally focused on, my forked IDE (working name
M2) will also include support for the superset of tasks ranging
from project management to product
It would be interesting to learn of anything you find there that's
attractive. MC is getting old, and the more they make radical
changes to the engine the harder it is to set up. We can easily fix
the setup stuff, but as my last question here was asking who wants a
simpler setup and it went
But I'm curious, when would you need the message box in a finished
application? Rev's message box, with its extra features, would
hardly be suitable, though MetaCard's plain ole box would I suppose
be more neutral.
t
The message box is for internal use only. I found it is easier to
Attempts to create a standalone failed. I'm not sure if I failed in
creating the Runtime in MC. Or if I failed in the Contents folder of
the actual standalone that was built.
I am assuming that this has something to do with the naming of
things. Remember that I had to name the Revolution
Had an epiphany about building the standalone with the Rev IDE. If
the stack is closed, then there shouldn't be a conflict. And in MC,
the stack does not need to be opened before building the standalone.
So... launched Rev... but the standalone builder isn't accessible
until you open the
Shari wrote:
The stack opens. But the Revolution IDE does not like that I have
standard stacks installed in the stack. (For ease of Standalone
building, a long time ago I installed custom versions of Ask, Answer,
Message etc. in the stack so that I would not have to import them every
time
Shari wrote:
At the moment, Runtime engine is set up as follows: the application is
called MetaCardCarbon.app, in the Resources folder it is
MetaCardCarbonMach-0.rsc, and in the MacOS folder it is
MetaCardCarbonMach-0.
The Standalone Builder says: Can't Open Engine.
Right, the
Tereza wrote:Many of my tools pertain to managing projects:
loading, saving, building, versioning, and archiving. Others
pertain to image manipulation and color management. Does
anyoneyou know the incantation to make a gif image with transparency say
30% darker then back again? This is
Recently, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone you know the incantation to make a gif image with transparency say
30% darker then back again? This is for icons and a mouseOver that currently
require two images, so two times the memory. Is there a method? The solution
has to be cross-platform,
20 matches
Mail list logo
