Re: [OT] Xojo
On 10.04.2014 06:21, Colin Holgate wrote: Took a look at Xojo this evening. It has quite a few interesting ideas in it, RunRev should check it out and steal some ideas from it!. The way that you choose controls and align them is especially neat. It also separates out scripts based on the interaction, rather than having all handlers in one script. I have reason to believe that the tool was written in RealBasic. If it was it’s a good example application for RealBasic too. Xojo is Real BASIC; they've just given it what they obviously feels is a jazzy name, but makes it difficult to work out what it really is. Richmond. ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Not like changing from Revolution to LiveCode! In any case, the name change is working for them. It’s being looked at like it’s a brand new tool. On Apr 10, 2014, at 2:47 AM, Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.com wrote: Xojo is Real BASIC; they've just given it what they obviously feels is a jazzy name, but makes it difficult to work out what it really is. ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Importantly, Xojo's license terms are much better. You don't lose the commercial license if you stop renewing annually. You simply stop receiving the updates. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Xojo-tp4678146p4678154.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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: [OT] Xojo
Sri wrote: Importantly, Xojo's license terms are much better. You don't lose the commercial license if you stop renewing annually. You simply stop receiving the updates. That can indeed be beneficial for some, but now that LiveCode also offers an open source option like most modern programming languages, in practical terms the difference in proprietary licensing affects only a relatively small subset of users. Most professional devs who need to deploy proprietary works upgrade annually to keep current with the latest features. For that segment the cost remains about what it was before. Nearly everyone else can use LiveCode Community Edition at no cost at all. For those folks the cost has dropped infinitely, to zero. It's only the subset of developers making proprietary works who need a Commercial license, and most are doing so under a business plan that brings in far more revenue than is needed to cover the cost of renewal. For such commercial works, the cost of an annual license should be the least of their concerns. To remain a viable product the work should be producing a positive ROI that also accounts for their own development time, marketing costs, etc., adding up to far more than the $500/yr for the other 80% of the app delivered by the RunRev team in the engine. If a project isn't financially viable enough to even cover a Commercial license fee, it may be worth considering releasing the work as open source instead. The audience will be much larger, and the project then has the opportunity to also benefit from outside contributions. And with the larger audience, if the proprietary licensing fees were pulling in less than $500/yr, you might even find that a donation link or grant funding opportunities may bring in more revenue under open source than the licensing fees did. Having come from the xTalk family of languages where all the great ones were old enough to have been proprietary, many LiveCode devs have relatively little experience with the world of options open source deployment opens up for us all. I was one of those, and it's only been in the last few years that I've come to appreciate how open source can be a good option for many projects. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
When I was considering a move to Livecode, after spending some time with Corona, I looked fairly seriously at Xojo. The attraction was the programming language syntax. But when I looked deeper, it was behind LC in multi platform support and the discussion forum showed problems with basic features. Pretty much similar to LC, tho. Anyway, I am happy with my decision to invest my effort in LC. The open source aspect, the refactoring of the basic engine to make it more robust, the modernization supported by the Kickstarter success, and the dynamic user community continue to validate my choice. It's simply a great product that is going to continue to improve. Best, Bill William Prothero http://es.earthednet.org On Apr 10, 2014, at 7:05 AM, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote: Sri wrote: Importantly, Xojo's license terms are much better. You don't lose the commercial license if you stop renewing annually. You simply stop receiving the updates. That can indeed be beneficial for some, but now that LiveCode also offers an open source option like most modern programming languages, in practical terms the difference in proprietary licensing affects only a relatively small subset of users. Most professional devs who need to deploy proprietary works upgrade annually to keep current with the latest features. For that segment the cost remains about what it was before. Nearly everyone else can use LiveCode Community Edition at no cost at all. For those folks the cost has dropped infinitely, to zero. It's only the subset of developers making proprietary works who need a Commercial license, and most are doing so under a business plan that brings in far more revenue than is needed to cover the cost of renewal. For such commercial works, the cost of an annual license should be the least of their concerns. To remain a viable product the work should be producing a positive ROI that also accounts for their own development time, marketing costs, etc., adding up to far more than the $500/yr for the other 80% of the app delivered by the RunRev team in the engine. If a project isn't financially viable enough to even cover a Commercial license fee, it may be worth considering releasing the work as open source instead. The audience will be much larger, and the project then has the opportunity to also benefit from outside contributions. And with the larger audience, if the proprietary licensing fees were pulling in less than $500/yr, you might even find that a donation link or grant funding opportunities may bring in more revenue under open source than the licensing fees did. Having come from the xTalk family of languages where all the great ones were old enough to have been proprietary, many LiveCode devs have relatively little experience with the world of options open source deployment opens up for us all. I was one of those, and it's only been in the last few years that I've come to appreciate how open source can be a good option for many projects. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Is that slightly misleading? In that all people making apps for either the iTunes or Mac app stores will need a commercial license, even if they are not creating proprietary content. On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote: It's only the subset of developers making proprietary works who need a Commercial license, and most are doing so under a business plan that brings in far more revenue than is needed to cover the cost of renewal. ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Richard Gaskin wrote ... in practical terms the difference in proprietary licensing affects only a relatively small subset of users.. I don't know. People who want to develop iPad and iPhone educational apps, but cannot really recoup $500 a year ..., must constitute a significant population, I think. I invested some time learning LiveCode but have put it in cold storage for almost a year now, for this reason. Nearly 100% my target segment is iPad users. I could elaborate in some detail why this is so, but then the key point here is if people like me are really a small subset. I truly think if LiveCode comes up with a different licensing schedule, one that allows, for a much smaller fee, people to develop commercial iOS app of some restricted size or lines of code (a rough yardstick of project complexity), they will be pleasantly surprised by the response. iPad has a disproportionate enthusiasm market share when it comes to edu apps. Regards, Sri. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Xojo-tp4678146p4678156.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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: [OT] Xojo
Colin Holgate wrote: On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: It's only the subset of developers making proprietary works who need a Commercial license, and most are doing so under a business plan that brings in far more revenue than is needed to cover the cost of renewal. Is that slightly misleading? In that all people making apps for either the iTunes or Mac app stores will need a commercial license, even if they are not creating proprietary content. My apologies; it certainly wasn't my intention to mislead. Yes, Apple's restrictions with their app store distribution license make it incompatible with the GPL, requiring another license to distribute to iOS for as long as Apple keeps the download limit policy in place and Apple is allowed to remain the only source of apps for that platform. Those unfamiliar with this can find the FSF position articles and others easily enough: https://www.google.com/search?q=gpl+fsf+app+store There is likely a subset of users who wish to deploy to iOS with free-as-in-no-cost apps, for which LiveCode Commercial Edition may not provide a positive ROI. Fortunately, for this subset of users the folks at RunRev recently introduced a new solution: Among the other benefits of the LiveCode Membership program is a special license to deploy non-revenue-producing apps to Apple's proprietary app store: Free App iOS Store Licensing Submit named, free apps to the iOS App store. Perfect if you’re just starting out creating completely free software with the LiveCode Community edition. The Apple iOS App Store is currently incompatible with the GPL license, so while you can distribute your free software for other platforms such as Android, you can’t submit to the Apple store. As a LiveCode Member you can submit your free noncommercial app to us and we will provide a license that will allow you to submit your app closed source to the iOS app store. Details on that and the other program benefits are here: http://livecode.com/membership/ -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Sri wrote: I truly think if LiveCode comes up with a different licensing schedule, one that allows, for a much smaller fee, people to develop commercial iOS app of some restricted size or lines of code (a rough yardstick of project complexity), they will be pleasantly surprised by the response. Let's find out - RunRev delivered almost exactly what you're looking for, at least as far as providing iOS deployment more affordably for non-revenue-producing apps: http://livecode.com/membership/ If instead the app is to be sold commercially as part of a business, how can the business survive if it isn't making enough to cover the cost of design, development, marketing, and Apple's 30% cut for distribution? If the segment being pursued is too narrow to be profitable anyway, there are many ways to benefit from apps than direct revenue. It may be both cheaper and more profitable for the app the join the majority in the app store that are distributed at zero cost to the user. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Richard Gaskin wrote Let's find out - RunRev delivered almost exactly what you're looking for, at least as far as providing iOS deployment more affordably for non-revenue-producing apps: lt;http://livecode.com/membership/gt; Richard, Thanks for the link. I look at LiveCode website once a while to see what's new, but did not stumble onto this page. I went back to livecode.com home page and tried to navigate to the above page, and had some difficulty finding it! I was looking for a page that compares Community and Commercial editions (I have seen it before), but couldn't navigate to it from the home page. I wonder if most people who come to the website to find out about the licenses will actually end up with full information. Others have said it before, the live code website badly needs some help. Sri. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Xojo-tp4678146p4678170.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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: [OT] Xojo
Not like changing from Revolution to LiveCode! In any case, the name change is working for them. It's being looked at like it's a brand new tool. REALbasic was the original name, then REAL Studio. Then Xojo. I think it was a good thing to change. I was very involved with the early history of RB - from RB 1 - RB 5.5 I believe (with some overlap into the modern interface era - its been a long time). It comes from a very different mind set than LiveCode, and provides an excellent multi-platform, modern replacement for Visual Basic. LiveCode and Xojo both create multi-platform applications, but that's where the similarity ends. Conceptualizing applications is 100% different. The sort of issues that arise during development are 100% different. The goals of either...you get the idea. Best regards, Lynn Fredricks Paradigma Software http://www.paradigmasoft.com Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Richard Gaskin wrote . If instead the app is to be sold commercially as part of a business, how can the business survive if it isn't making enough to cover the cost of design, development, marketing, and Apple's 30% cut for distribution? There is a segment between those who make free apps as a hobby (and a contribution to the field), and full-time programmers/businesses. There are programs that may be useful for narrow niches (e.g., low-incidence disabilities) that may still involve enough time and effort to warrant a modest price (which the users are willing to pay). Such programs are not profitable for professional programmers/businesses, but too involved for a strict hobbyist. Regards, Sri. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Xojo-tp4678146p4678172.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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: [OT] Xojo
Lynn Fredricks-2 wrote It comes from a very different mind set than LiveCode, and provides an excellent multi-platform, modern replacement for Visual Basic. LiveCode and Xojo both create multi-platform applications, but that's where the similarity ends. Conceptualizing applications is 100% different. The sort of issues that arise during development are 100% different. The goals of either...you get the idea. To help people who may considering both products, would you care to spill some more ink on HOW they are different? Thank you for your time, Sri. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Xojo-tp4678146p4678174.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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: [OT] Xojo
On 10/04/14 20:34, Sri wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote Let's find out - RunRev delivered almost exactly what you're looking for, at least as far as providing iOS deployment more affordably for non-revenue-producing apps: lt;http://livecode.com/membership/gt; Richard, Thanks for the link. I look at LiveCode website once a while to see what's new, but did not stumble onto this page. I went back to livecode.com home page and tried to navigate to the above page, and had some difficulty finding it! I was looking for a page that compares Community and Commercial editions (I have seen it before), but couldn't navigate to it from the home page. I wonder if most people who come to the website to find out about the licenses will actually end up with full information. Others have said it before, the live code website badly needs some help. Sri. You are not the first person who has stated that the RunRev website is rather difficult to navigate around. Or, let's be a bit more specific: the RunRev and the Livecode websites (they have 2 addresses: www.runrev.com and www.livecode.com); that of itself is a bit confusing. - Anyway: back to the Livecode website . . . I want to find the sourcecode of the OSS version of Livecode. Where do I start looking? Well, at a guess, I should click on Developers . . . On the Developers page I get a long, confusing list down the left-hand side. Now, if I'm a mind reader I work out that I should click on Resources and Support [I found that by clicking my way down the list] Then I get a shorter list in green: There are a variety of Guides to various aspects of LiveCode available at Beginners Developers Moving to LiveCode iOS Externals LiveCode Server Contributing to LiveCode Clicking my way through all of them, I eventually find that Contributing to Livecode --- Returning to www.livecode.com I enter sourcecode into the search field and search; and get a long list where there is no link to the sourcecode in the first 10 entries at all. Gives me a socking great green list . . . Nowhere in that list can I see the phrase source code Having clicked my way about a third of the way down the list on Installing and using GitHub I get another page where there is a green link: https://github.com/RunRev/LiveCode; where I find the source code, which is NOT downloadable as a ZIP file, a TARBALL, or anything else unitary, but a thing which I have to fiddle around with via a Terminal emulator to get organised into a folder on my machine. Quod erat demonstrandum est. Richmond. ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
On 10/04/14 20:45, Sri wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote . If instead the app is to be sold commercially as part of a business, how can the business survive if it isn't making enough to cover the cost of design, development, marketing, and Apple's 30% cut for distribution? There is a segment between those who make free apps as a hobby (and a contribution to the field), and full-time programmers/businesses. There are programs that may be useful for narrow niches (e.g., low-incidence disabilities) that may still involve enough time and effort to warrant a modest price (which the users are willing to pay). Such programs are not profitable for professional programmers/businesses, but too involved for a strict hobbyist. Regards, Sri. My Devawriter Pro and PISMO fit right into this category. Richmond. ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
On 10/04/14 20:58, Sri wrote: Lynn Fredricks-2 wrote It comes from a very different mind set than LiveCode, and provides an excellent multi-platform, modern replacement for Visual Basic. LiveCode and Xojo both create multi-platform applications, but that's where the similarity ends. Conceptualizing applications is 100% different. The sort of issues that arise during development are 100% different. The goals of either...you get the idea. To help people who may considering both products, would you care to spill some more ink on HOW they are different? Thank you for your time, Sri. I think, Sri, you may be expecting a bit much of Lynn, who is a busy man [been there, made that mistake; the one about the name]. Surely, the thing to do is to download the free version of Xojo and the free version of Livecode and run them side by side for a bit. I have downloaded both, and am planning [all the best laid plans of mice and men . . ] to set aside 3-4 hours to play around with Xojo and see how it compares with Livecode. To be honest, I have little or no intention of swapping from Livecode to Xojo, having invested about 24 hours a week for the last 14 years fooling around with Livecode: but I do have a feeling a spot of messing around with Xojo might reinform me of Livecode's strengths, its weaknesses, and suggest a few ideas for Livecode's improvement. Richmond. ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Sri wrote: Richard Gaskin wrote Let's find out - RunRev delivered almost exactly what you're looking for, at least as far as providing iOS deployment more affordably for non-revenue-producing apps: http://livecode.com/membership/ Richard, Thanks for the link. I look at LiveCode website once a while to see what's new, but did not stumble onto this page. I went back to livecode.com home page and tried to navigate to the above page, and had some difficulty finding it! There's a banner with link to it on the bottom-right of the home page at livecode.com. It's also included among the options on the Community page, accessed from the navbar at the top of every page. I was looking for a page that compares Community and Commercial editions (I have seen it before), but couldn't navigate to it from the home page. I wonder if most people who come to the website to find out about the licenses will actually end up with full information. Others have said it before, the live code website badly needs some help. Site taxonomy is rarely easy, and with a tool that has two versions and a broad range of learning and community resources, no less so. So specific feedback like yours is helpful, though it wouldn't be a bad thing if the team also had time for a card sort exercise (maybe someone here can whip up one with LC server for gathering data?). In the meantime, the page you're looking for involves purchasing licenses, which are under the Store heading in the navbar. In the middle of the Store page is a section labeled See which edition is right for me, with links labeled See All LiveCode Licenses and Compare. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Richmond wrote: You are not the first person who has stated that the RunRev website is rather difficult to navigate around. Or, let's be a bit more specific: the RunRev and the Livecode websites (they have 2 addresses: www.runrev.com and www.livecode.com); that of itself is a bit confusing. I think it's only confusing for old-timers who were used to having the company and product name be the same thing. As it is now it's not that different from Mozilla and Firefox, or Canonical and Ubuntu, or Trimble and Sketchup, or many others. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
On 10/04/14 21:24, Richard Gaskin wrote: Richmond wrote: You are not the first person who has stated that the RunRev website is rather difficult to navigate around. Or, let's be a bit more specific: the RunRev and the Livecode websites (they have 2 addresses: www.runrev.com and www.livecode.com); that of itself is a bit confusing. I think it's only confusing for old-timers who were used to having the company and product name be the same thing. As it is now it's not that different from Mozilla and Firefox, or Canonical and Ubuntu, or Trimble and Sketchup, or many others. That's a fair point. However, my main crit. of the website came in my search for sourcecode. Richmond. ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Richmond wrote: However, my main crit. of the website came in my search for sourcecode. On that one most projects will have an even worse problem, since the source is on a different site, usually GitHub. That said, with LiveCode it's easier to find that for many other projects - this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=livecode+source+code ...yields the GitHub repository in the third hit. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
On 10/04/14 21:45, Richard Gaskin wrote: Richmond wrote: However, my main crit. of the website came in my search for sourcecode. On that one most projects will have an even worse problem, since the source is on a different site, usually GitHub. That said, with LiveCode it's easier to find that for many other projects - this search: https://www.google.com/search?q=livecode+source+code ...yields the GitHub repository in the third hit. Aha: that's certainly better. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys ___ 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: [OT] Xojo
Xojo/Real Studio is written in Xojo/Real Studio/RealBASIC, yes. With the current MacHeist ADA promo there's very little reason it can't be in everybody's toolkit. On 04/09/2014, 8:21 PM, Colin Holgate wrote: Took a look at Xojo this evening. It has quite a few interesting ideas in it, RunRev should check it out and steal some ideas from it!. The way that you choose controls and align them is especially neat. It also separates out scripts based on the interaction, rather than having all handlers in one script. I have reason to believe that the tool was written in RealBasic. If it was it’s a good example application for RealBasic too. -- David Glass - Gray Matter Computing graymattercomputing.com Central Valley: 559-303-4915 East Bay: 925-335-8486 ___ 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
