I have a library of custom handlers that I load at startup in both
MC and Rev. One of my handlers reports the mainstacks that are
currently loaded in memory. When I run this handler in MC, there are
at most only a couple of stacks from the IDE listed, but in Rev, it
is difficult to find my own
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
So putting it just as bluntly, that there is a perception of MC's value is
reason enough. If that perception changes over time the MC engine will
whither away naturally. There should be no need to force change, and doing
so would not
Agreed. I tried to give Rev an honest chance this weekend and got
totally frustrated with all the palettes. I was genuinely happy to see
support for MySQL and other items I need but the interface simply
turned me off and I had to use MC in the end. It's not that I didn't
understand the
on 7/21/03 3:10 PM, Simon lord wrote
Maybe Kevin will add a pref dialog that allows us to decide what
palettes and menus we want to see in our work environment. That would
help considerably and I don't see it as being that difficult to provide.
[...snip...]
On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 09:10
Not that I'm here to speak for RunRev or anything (and for all I know
those
folks may know of a reason why this suggestion is a very bad idea);
but if
you're interested in things like the database support, but find the
interface too rcih/in your face, have you tried the Suspend
Development
Ben Rubinstein wrote:
Maybe that is the way forward for those who will want to continue to upgrade
to new engines etc, benefit from the additional libraries, but use their own
or the classic MetaCard UI. It might even be possible to formalise this
in a future version of Rev - eg have
I once considered writing a Rev plugin called GhostCard, which
would emulate
the UI of the dead HyperCard:
When activated, the Rev IDE is suspended and replaced with a
black-and-white
UI that emulates the Hypercard expoerience. You could only work with one
image, only select one
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 10:32 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
several good examples of how MC is simpler than Rev omitted
These are very minor examples, none of which are crucial or
insurmountable. I can customize my way out of the first two of them
easily. But the lean IDE in MC has its
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
So putting it just as bluntly, that there is a perception of MC's
value is
reason enough. If that perception changes over time the MC engine will
whither away naturally. There should be no need to force change, and
doing
so would
On 7/12/03 10:02 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
Then I don't understand all the talk of customizing MC. If it's near
perfect (for those who like simplicity) the way it is, let it stay that
way. It won't take a team effort to keep it compatible with any
foreseeable changes to the engine.
I don't
On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 20:04, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 7/12/03 10:02 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
-- snip --
For those who prefer MC's simplicity, I don't see any harm in continuing
to assure it is compatible with the most current Rev engine. People will
still have to purchase Revolution to
On 7/11/03 12:03 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is it that the MetaCard development environment
has that the Revolution environment doesn't?
Or, what is it that MetaCard _doesn't_ have that can't be hidden or
done away with in Revolution?
The second statement is more likely on
But for those who have been using MC for a long time, the extra
palettes, libraries, and interface elements can get in the way.
Someone mentioned speed, and that's a consideration too; it does
take somewhat longer for Rev's palettes to load and display their
data -- noticeably more time than
On 7/11/03 1:01 PM, Shari wrote:
This brings up a question. I remember when I initially tested Rev vs.
MC, Rev required a LOT more memory. Now if I have a project, and
compile it in Rev, and MC, will it require more memory in Rev?
The extra RAM is mostly for the IDE. Once your stacks become
on 07.09.03 1:20 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Things we need to decide:
- Is Yahoo Groups acceptable as a groupware solution for this project?
With its discussion list, file repository, calendar, and links it
gets my vote, but there may be things I'm overlooking.
- If so, is it simpler to
Tereza Snyder wrote:
on 07.09.03 1:20 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Things we need to decide:
- Is Yahoo Groups acceptable as a groupware solution for this project?
With its discussion list, file repository, calendar, and links it
gets my vote, but there may be things I'm overlooking.
-
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 01:23 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Tereza Snyder wrote:
on 07.09.03 1:20 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Things we need to decide:
- Is Yahoo Groups acceptable as a groupware solution for this
project?
With its discussion list, file repository, calendar, and links it
Mark Talluto wrote:
I am just curious to know how many people are planning on staying with
MC and being active in maintaining its IDE?
That's a good question. I'm well invested in a nice workflow with nifty
quick tools I've added, so I'm inclined to keep that workflow in place for
the
Recently, Mark Talluto wrote:
I am just curious to know how many people are planning on staying with
MC and being active in maintaining its IDE?
I can't say how long we'll stay with the MC IDE (can anyone really?), but I
can say we're willing to contribute to its development now.
Regards,
Recently, Richard Gaskin wrote:
I would be happy to contribute to the maintenance of the IDE going forward,
and would like to see simpler extensibility as a first step (after we get a
list set up to make it happen, of course).
Great suggestion!
I think Richard won't mind me mentioning the
On 7/9/03 3:34 PM, Mark Talluto wrote:
I am just curious to know how many people are planning on staying with
MC and being active in maintaining its IDE?
Don't know what the future may bring, but I'd like to remain involved
with the MC IDE regardless.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay |
Hi MetaCarders,
Recently, Mark Talluto wrote:
I am just curious to know how many people are planning on staying with
MC and being active in maintaining its IDE?
I can't say how long we'll stay with the MC IDE (can anyone really?),
but I
can say we're willing to contribute to its development
On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 22:34, Mark Talluto wrote:
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 01:23 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Tereza Snyder wrote:
on 07.09.03 1:20 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Things we need to decide:
- Is Yahoo Groups acceptable as a groupware solution for this
project?
23 matches
Mail list logo
