On 2015-09-30 09:42, Kay C Lan wrote:
Although one thing that slightly annoyed me is that it could give many
people
the impression that LiveCode is ONLY fit for rapid prototyping, and
that,
having prototyped
something the "real deal" has to be constructed in something else.
I must confess that there is potentially that take away from the
article.
However, another way to look at it is - if the US Navy use it for rapid
prototyping of substantial software systems then LiveCode must be quite
capable.
OK you're the English expert and I basically failed it, but I don't
know
how you could possibly come to that conclusion. I read one paragraph
that
said GDIT 'normally' used LC as a RAD tool but then noted that it had
recently made several one-off LC standalone apps. The rest of the
article
went on the basically describe one of these LC apps - MSAT and included
the
shocker that the whole thing was constructed "without a single line of
code
written by a software engineer".
I don't think this is too uncommon - people have often picked up
LiveCode (and its predecessors) to prototype something and then realized
they've actually built the app.
The article says to me; If you need a mission critical life vs death
piece
of battle proof software and you need it fast, then prototype it in LC
and
build it something else. But, if you only need to simulate the overall
dynamics of a massive naval battle anywhere around the globe, in real
time,
quicktime, or replay time, then LC can do that for you, no problem.
I think Kay makes an extremely good point about something that isn't
perhaps entirely obvious from the article.
There are many endeavours where certain practices, procedures and
processes are mandated - you can only use tools in this instance which
have got the relevant certifications. It is usually on the shoulders of
said tool provider to ensure such certifications are met and maintained.
Defence related projects are be full of these. For example, for Apple to
get the iPhone used in certain US governmental situations they have to
get it 'FIPS certified'. This is long, lengthy and expensive process
that ensures that all security features comply to very strict and high
standards.
So, yes, in this instance I suspect LiveCode could not be used to
produce the final system because it was not compliant to the various
things that were mandated as part of the systems specification. However,
by prototyping in LiveCode first they mananged to ensure they had the
design of it right before the humungously expensive process of getting
it implemented to the required standards - I think this is very positive
outcome.
Of course, it would be nice if we could be used in all such situations
from end to end; however, we have to pick our battles at the end of the
day and I'm not sure we are quite big enough yet to enter certain
spheres...
Warmest Regards,
Mark.
--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
_______________________________________________
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
