Hear, hear!!! This is what I ment, This is exactly the point I was making! Well put!
Ton Kuypers > From: "Edwin Gore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:46:54 -0700 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re: Active X support > > I think people have some widely divergent ideas about what constitutes a cross > platform development environment. > > To my mind it should be a case of the anything that you do using just RunRev > runs anywhere, but at the same time it should actually support the platform > specific features of different operating systems. That way the developer can > make informed decisions about how they want to handle cross platform issues > when RunRev doesn't natively support something. > > Adding support for Applescript, XCMDs, ActiveX and whatever the OS-X/unix > equivelents might be doesn't reduce the cross-platform capabiilities of > RunRev, it increases it. Those are all important parts of the individual > platforms, and if you don't consider support for them, it makes the > development system too limited to appeal to developers across the board. If > you only support the lowest common denominator of what can be supported on ALL > platforms, you end up with what is a very limited subset of the power of each > individual operating system. > > ActiveX is a big part of the Windows architecture these days. There are > thousands of controls out there already, and it would be great to get access > to them. Not being able to makes RunRev much less attractive to Windows users, > and there are several of them. For Revolution to really succeed I think it's > important that it support platform specific technologies on Windows, Mac, and > on Linux, when they are an important part of the operating system. A > development system that is best of breed for Windows, Mac, Lijnux AND > crossplatform is a much more powerful proposition than one that is just the > best Crossplatform system, but not really the best for any particular system. > > I think that Revolution did the right thing in creating an externals library > that supports programmers creating externals that can re-compile for other > platforms using the same code, but I think that supoorting the externals > architectures that the indivual OSs already supoort is just as important. > >> ----- ------- Original Message ------- ----- >> From: Stephen Quinn Barncard >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:11:26 >> >> Huh? My post was about inclusion, not taking out >> stuff. Please don't >> quote my words out of context for your own imagined >> conclusions. >> >> sqb >> >>>>> Active X -- Great for windoze folks, useless >> for Mac and Unix... >>>>> Wouldn't this be against the 'cross platform >> concept" of Rev? >>>> >>>> Exactly ... I think thera are a lot of "Windoze >> only to do everything >>>> but nothing..." tools, imho we dont need >> another one... >>>> regards >>>> Wolfgang M. Bereuter >>>> >>> Hmmmm >>> So if you can't have it on the Mac, you don't want >> it to be possible on the >>> PC as well? >>> Then how about killing AppleScript support on the >> Mac? >>> >>> Ton Kuypers >> _______________________________________________ >> use-revolution mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolu >> tion > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > > _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
