Metacard 4
I had forgotten how awkward it was to get quite a lot of things donein Metacard as opposed to RunRev. I only 'made' Metacard 4 because, like the Eiger; it is there! I would also like to remind folk of the following inescapable facts: 1. You need to own some sort of RunRev Studio or Enterprise to be able to pop the engine into the MC environment. 2. The Metacard standalone builder does not allow one to build the MC equivalent of revlets: not even sure what they would be called: MetaCrudlets ? Metalets ? Metlets ? 3. The difficulty of getting under the hood with the MC IDE is awful, and is becoming increasingly awful. Having paid for RunRev (you cannot make MC from the Free revMedia as the RunRev engine is wrapped up with everything else) why not just us it? Ah, that reminds me, before I fly back to Bulgaria, I have to buy some new kilt socks: as I am not a backward looking type, having bought them I will not take 3 threads out of them, shove them back in the bag and go on wearing the 20 year-old horrors I was sporting at the conf. (no chance to shop before it began). ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Metacard 4
Richmond Mathewson wrote: 1. You need to own some sort of RunRev Studio or Enterprise to be able to pop the engine into the MC environment. True. The engine-based licensing Mr. Waddingham introduced in v2.7 has opened up whole new worlds for developers, allowing anyone to make any IDE environment they want with no risk to RunRev since any of them require a licensed installation of the core Rev product. 2. The Metacard standalone builder does not allow one to build the MC equivalent of revlets: not even sure what they would be called: MetaCrudlets ? Metalets ? Metlets ? Not currently, but neither does the shipping version of Rev. Based on comments from Kevin on the improve-rev list we can expect this to be supportable in the MC IDE by the time Rev 4 ships. As for terminology, it seems simpler to just call them Revlets. MC is just a colection of tools; the engine is always the engine, the format always the format. 3. The difficulty of getting under the hood with the MC IDE is awful, and is becoming increasingly awful. I find very much the opposite. What would you like to do that you found difficult. I'm no fan of Raney's code style, but with about 1/10th as much code and no mirrored messages or custom props being added to ones work I find mucking around in MC much simpler. Having paid for RunRev (you cannot make MC from the Free revMedia as the RunRev engine is wrapped up with everything else) why not just us it? I think it's largely a matter of taste. For myself, I prefer to minimize the differences between development and runtime, and MC's lean workflow provides higher fidelity between the two than with Rev. For example, just last week I was stuck trying to fix a bug that only occurs at runtime when building EXEs in Rev, since Rev alters your objects by adding a hidden group containing a number of buttons which will take up to seven of the ten available backscript slots, and at least one of the frontScript slots. For many apps this may be fine, but I make extensive use of backscripts and need the slots the engine provides. But moreover, if there's anything wrong with the Rev scripts you have no choice in the matter - it will always include at least some of them, and in my case it was trapping Apple event messages in ways I could only work around by moving my handler into a frontScript to get it before RunRev's code did. In MC this is never a problem, since its standalones requires no frontScripts or backScripts, and the only two libraries which it may included leave you in control of how they're loaded. Know the engine. Trust the engine. Use the engine. :) -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Revolution training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Metacard 4
Richard Gaskin wrote: Know the engine. Trust the engine. Use the engine. Mind-numbing mantras are used for just that; to numb the mind and stop all discussion and critical thinking. This is why, although I work only with RunRev, I keep looking at HyperNext, Elefat and so on, because, while at the moment they amount to very little, they may, in due course, either give RunRev a run for its money, or prick it sufficiently not to become monopolistically complacent. Metacard is not going forwards; it is now just an old, passé user interface jammed onto an engine that deserves and requires something a lot better; and that something is already well developed: Runtime Revolution. ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Metacard 4
Richmond Mathewson wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote: Know the engine. Trust the engine. Use the engine. Mind-numbing mantras are used for just that; to numb the mind and stop all discussion and critical thinking. This is why, although I work only with RunRev, I keep looking at HyperNext, Elefat and so on, because, while at the moment they amount to very little, they may, in due course, either give RunRev a run for its money, or prick it sufficiently not to become monopolistically complacent. Metacard is not going forwards; it is now just an old, passé user interface jammed onto an engine that deserves and requires something a lot better; and that something is already well developed: Runtime Revolution. Thank you for your helpful comments. There's no requirement to use the MC IDE, and no one here is stopping you from using the Rev IDE. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Revolution training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com ___ metacard mailing list metacard@lists.runrev.com http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
