Re: Suggestion: Non-Appbuilding Community Edition
You wouldn't necessarily even need that much. Tell them to install the free version and open your stack from the File menu. It isn't an app but they'd have all the capabilities. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On September 4, 2021 7:53:43 PM Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote: On 04/09/2021 15:36, David Bovill via use-livecode wrote: So the question here is why not do the same here - keep a free-to-develop “trial version” without the compilation framework and tools. I’m curious to the reasoning. The cynic in me would say that the assumption is that there are too few developers in this (non-game) market who would need the compilation / stand-alone-builder functions - so while game developers and companies might pay for commercial Unity 3D licenses - that is not true for Livecode developers? I don’t / like / buy that argument - so I would love to here good reasons or not adopting a Unity 3D style licensing model? I'm not familiar with Unity - so I'll answer just from a LC perspective (and in many ways just reinforce what Kevin said in his response to your original suggestion). The problem with a free, no-app-builder version is that you can do so much with it. You can make it easy (or even trivial) for anyone to install and run the stacks you create. 0. Either create your stack as a plugin, or create a plugin which gives a menu of apps to run. Then instruct your users to: 1. Install LC (free-to-develop). LC's installation process is almost hands-free. 2. download/run a simple installer script or shell script which will put a stack into the (default location for) the plugins folder. 3. Run the IDE. 4. Follow the 3-click instructions to change the setting to start this plugin when LC starts up. and you're done. It's not 100% as simple to install as a built app, but it's not rocket science. And provided your stacks don't involve the menu system, users will probably not even notice that they're in the IDE. Design your app to look like it was "mobile-first" with its own menu built-in and 95% of your users would be happy. Alex. ___ 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: Suggestion: Non-Appbuilding Community Edition
On 04/09/2021 15:36, David Bovill via use-livecode wrote: So the question here is why not do the same here - keep a free-to-develop “trial version” without the compilation framework and tools. I’m curious to the reasoning. The cynic in me would say that the assumption is that there are too few developers in this (non-game) market who would need the compilation / stand-alone-builder functions - so while game developers and companies might pay for commercial Unity 3D licenses - that is not true for Livecode developers? I don’t / like / buy that argument - so I would love to here good reasons or not adopting a Unity 3D style licensing model? I'm not familiar with Unity - so I'll answer just from a LC perspective (and in many ways just reinforce what Kevin said in his response to your original suggestion). The problem with a free, no-app-builder version is that you can do so much with it. You can make it easy (or even trivial) for anyone to install and run the stacks you create. 0. Either create your stack as a plugin, or create a plugin which gives a menu of apps to run. Then instruct your users to: 1. Install LC (free-to-develop). LC's installation process is almost hands-free. 2. download/run a simple installer script or shell script which will put a stack into the (default location for) the plugins folder. 3. Run the IDE. 4. Follow the 3-click instructions to change the setting to start this plugin when LC starts up. and you're done. It's not 100% as simple to install as a built app, but it's not rocket science. And provided your stacks don't involve the menu system, users will probably not even notice that they're in the IDE. Design your app to look like it was "mobile-first" with its own menu built-in and 95% of your users would be happy. Alex. ___ 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: Random crash when building standalone
I use RevApplicationOverview exclusively and haven't had the problem. My
guess would be that the standalone builder attaches those substacks and
then reopens the wrong copy when it's done. But I'm not sure.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On September 4, 2021 12:23:43 PM Ludovic Thébault via use-livecode
wrote:
Hello,
The stacks concerned are not so old! It must be LiveCode 6 or 7.
I have the impression that the RevApplicationOverview plugin has an
influence in the problem. I’ll dig on it.
Ludovic
Le 3 sept. 2021 à 20:04, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
a écrit :
On 9/3/21 3:53 AM, Ludovic THEBAULT via use-livecode wrote:
Hello,
When I build a Windows or macOS standalone, I sometimes have several alerts
that concern the "livecode's stacks" ("answer dialog", "print chooser" ...)
that are saved in the standalone (but I don't want them to be!) and that
conflict with the original stacks.
And rarely it ends with a livecode crash.
These "livecode stack's" are also added as substacks in my stacks...
This seems to be related to "old stacks".
I can't find any bug report about this but maybe I didn't look hard enough
I've seen this before with stacks that were originally built with MC, where
you had to include ask and answer stacks manually into the mainstack. I've
also heard about these inclusions once or twice in LC but I'm not sure what
would cause that.
From the message box, do: put the substacks of stack "myMainStack"
If the ask/answer dialogs are there, then you can delete them:
delete stack "answer dialog" of stack "myMainStack"
delete stack "ask dialog" of stack "myMainStack"
Be sure to include the reference to your mainstack, since otherwise you
might delete the one in the IDE. That's no a permanent problem but it won't
solve your issue.
You might also be able to do the same thing in the project browser, but I
usually use the message box.
--
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
___
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: Random crash when building standalone
Hello,
The stacks concerned are not so old! It must be LiveCode 6 or 7.
I have the impression that the RevApplicationOverview plugin has an influence
in the problem. I’ll dig on it.
Ludovic
> Le 3 sept. 2021 à 20:04, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> a écrit :
>
> On 9/3/21 3:53 AM, Ludovic THEBAULT via use-livecode wrote:
>> Hello,
>> When I build a Windows or macOS standalone, I sometimes have several alerts
>> that concern the "livecode's stacks" ("answer dialog", "print chooser" ...)
>> that are saved in the standalone (but I don't want them to be!) and that
>> conflict with the original stacks.
>> And rarely it ends with a livecode crash.
>> These "livecode stack's" are also added as substacks in my stacks...
>> This seems to be related to "old stacks".
>> I can't find any bug report about this but maybe I didn't look hard enough
>
> I've seen this before with stacks that were originally built with MC, where
> you had to include ask and answer stacks manually into the mainstack. I've
> also heard about these inclusions once or twice in LC but I'm not sure what
> would cause that.
>
> From the message box, do: put the substacks of stack "myMainStack"
>
> If the ask/answer dialogs are there, then you can delete them:
> delete stack "answer dialog" of stack "myMainStack"
> delete stack "ask dialog" of stack "myMainStack"
>
> Be sure to include the reference to your mainstack, since otherwise you might
> delete the one in the IDE. That's no a permanent problem but it won't solve
> your issue.
>
> You might also be able to do the same thing in the project browser, but I
> usually use the message box.
>
> --
> 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
___
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: Suggestion: Non-Appbuilding Community Edition
David, thats an interesting model to bring up. I wonder how much of this new direction is considered to be etched in stone, and how much is up for tweaking still. Very happy to see signs that the team is listening to all the feedback. On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 10:37 AM David Bovill via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > The clearest example of a free-forever development licence which you pay > for when you wish to release your app is obviously Unity 3D. I remember > when this project was a small developer community supported by a company > and community of keen early adopters. I asked then why Livecode Ltd didn’t > adopt a model close to that - sure there are differences between the game > market and Livecode’s market but still? > > So the question here is why not do the same here - keep a free-to-develop > “trial version” without the compilation framework and tools. I’m curious to > the reasoning. The cynic in me would say that the assumption is that there > are too few developers in this (non-game) market who would need the > compilation / stand-alone-builder functions - so while game developers and > companies might pay for commercial Unity 3D licenses - that is not true for > Livecode developers? I don’t / like / buy that argument - so I would love > to here good reasons or not adopting a Unity 3D style licensing model? > > 📆Schedule a call with me > On 3 Sep 2021, 15:07 +0100, Kevin Miller via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>, wrote: > > What I liked about your email to me Tom was that it was extremely > specific. You had just a handful of issues you considered absolutely key > and offered to Zoom to show that to me. I look forward to scheduling that > once I finish getting unburried __ > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Kevin > > > > Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ > > LiveCode: Develop Yourself > > > > On 02/09/2021, 22:59, "use-livecode on behalf of Tom Glod via > use-livecode" use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > Lagi, > > > > I wrote to Kevin earlier and gave the exact same advice. those exact 2 > > points needing to be addressed. > > > > Give long trial, fix the most obvious IDE issues ASAP. > > > > Without those two things how is any new developer going to join the > > platform? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 5:34 PM Lagi Pittas via use-livecode < > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > > Trials of 14 days or even 30 days are a waste of time. I can install > > > something and use it for a couple of days - then life / work gets in > the > > > way > > > so It sits on the computer for 31 days and then times out. > > > > > > You then have to waste your time and the companies to get an extension, > > > and by the time they answer > > > you get cheesed off and remove the program. > > > > > > The BEST trial is the one that lasts for 30 actual executions or 6 > months > > > (whichever comes first). > > > > > > This stops the clever SOD who decides to keep it running without > exiting > > > for 6 months but it times out anyway. > > > Even better if he keeps it on for 2 days it counts as "executing" > twice so > > > it will last 30 days. > > > > > > This means I have 30 days over a 6 month period to really test it > without > > > rushing. > > > > > > The people who would game the system are the people who won't be loyal > > > customer anyway, so not giving a worthwhile trial period handicaps > those > > > who want to give it a good try. > > > > > > You can also put a nag screen at the start of any executable with an OK > > > button link to a special discounted price - free marketing (what a > > > brilliant Idea, why didn't I think of it?). > > > > > > But the best way of selling it is to FIX the bloody IDE - I am running > on a > > > 16G 1 year Old 8th Generation CoreI7 processor and it STILL runs like > > > treacle. > > > > > > If I downloaded it today as a new person it would be off my machine in > less > > > than 30 minutes. > > > > > > You could also use this as your "marketing" system by "giving it away" > to > > > schools for nothing and without the trial period but the nag screen. > > > > > > It can then be used by the students to learn programming at no cost - > and > > > some of the students parent might pony up for a paid for version at a > > > student price (with no expiring standalones of cours - the most stupid > idea > > > of the lot so far) > > > > > > > > > Anyway Kevin, have I/we wastedour time again putting out these cranky, > > > stupid and not workable suggestions?. > > > > > > Lagi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 15:55, Kevin Miller via use-livecode < > > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > > > > We *are* considering the length of the trial actively, we may well > give a > > > > longer trial a shot at some point. > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
Re: Suggestion: Non-Appbuilding Community Edition
The clearest example of a free-forever development licence which you pay for when you wish to release your app is obviously Unity 3D. I remember when this project was a small developer community supported by a company and community of keen early adopters. I asked then why Livecode Ltd didn’t adopt a model close to that - sure there are differences between the game market and Livecode’s market but still? So the question here is why not do the same here - keep a free-to-develop “trial version” without the compilation framework and tools. I’m curious to the reasoning. The cynic in me would say that the assumption is that there are too few developers in this (non-game) market who would need the compilation / stand-alone-builder functions - so while game developers and companies might pay for commercial Unity 3D licenses - that is not true for Livecode developers? I don’t / like / buy that argument - so I would love to here good reasons or not adopting a Unity 3D style licensing model? 📆 Schedule a call with me On 3 Sep 2021, 15:07 +0100, Kevin Miller via use-livecode , wrote: > What I liked about your email to me Tom was that it was extremely specific. > You had just a handful of issues you considered absolutely key and offered to > Zoom to show that to me. I look forward to scheduling that once I finish > getting unburried __ > > Kind regards, > > Kevin > > Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ > LiveCode: Develop Yourself > > On 02/09/2021, 22:59, "use-livecode on behalf of Tom Glod via use-livecode" > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > Lagi, > > I wrote to Kevin earlier and gave the exact same advice. those exact 2 > points needing to be addressed. > > Give long trial, fix the most obvious IDE issues ASAP. > > Without those two things how is any new developer going to join the > platform? > > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 5:34 PM Lagi Pittas via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > Trials of 14 days or even 30 days are a waste of time. I can install > > something and use it for a couple of days - then life / work gets in the > > way > > so It sits on the computer for 31 days and then times out. > > > > You then have to waste your time and the companies to get an extension, > > and by the time they answer > > you get cheesed off and remove the program. > > > > The BEST trial is the one that lasts for 30 actual executions or 6 months > > (whichever comes first). > > > > This stops the clever SOD who decides to keep it running without exiting > > for 6 months but it times out anyway. > > Even better if he keeps it on for 2 days it counts as "executing" twice so > > it will last 30 days. > > > > This means I have 30 days over a 6 month period to really test it without > > rushing. > > > > The people who would game the system are the people who won't be loyal > > customer anyway, so not giving a worthwhile trial period handicaps those > > who want to give it a good try. > > > > You can also put a nag screen at the start of any executable with an OK > > button link to a special discounted price - free marketing (what a > > brilliant Idea, why didn't I think of it?). > > > > But the best way of selling it is to FIX the bloody IDE - I am running on a > > 16G 1 year Old 8th Generation CoreI7 processor and it STILL runs like > > treacle. > > > > If I downloaded it today as a new person it would be off my machine in less > > than 30 minutes. > > > > You could also use this as your "marketing" system by "giving it away" to > > schools for nothing and without the trial period but the nag screen. > > > > It can then be used by the students to learn programming at no cost - and > > some of the students parent might pony up for a paid for version at a > > student price (with no expiring standalones of cours - the most stupid idea > > of the lot so far) > > > > > > Anyway Kevin, have I/we wastedour time again putting out these cranky, > > stupid and not workable suggestions?. > > > > Lagi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 15:55, Kevin Miller via use-livecode < > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > > We *are* considering the length of the trial actively, we may well give a > > > longer trial a shot at some point. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ > > > LiveCode: Develop Yourself > > > > > > On 02/09/2021, 15:51, "use-livecode on behalf of Ralph DiMola via > > > use-livecode" > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > > > True, true. > > > > > > There could be a small group of programmers that pass a stack around > > > but you would not be able to convince/teach a civilian to install a > > > programming IDE and explain how to run the stack along with any other > > > supporting files, SW or plug-ins... Mobile would be a non-starter. I > > would > > > not dismiss this out-of-hand. A 90 day free IDE could also be an option. > > > > >
