I suppose that every one of us could come up with a list of things that we wish Rev would do. High on my list, e.g., is the ability to have truly styled text and styled text editing in fields. One of my dream apps demands this. But creating such a tool that would work across just the three primary platforms -- Mac OS X, Windows XP, and the core distribution of Linux -- would be a HUGE undertaking. (I know; I've read specs for it from other developers). Does that mean I am ready or willing even to CONSIDER abandoning the best development tool I've ever seen for 90% of my work? Or does it mean that I acknowledge that no tool, no matter how good it is, will ALWAYS have holes, will always have applications for which it simply isn't suited, and either to choose not to develop applications for which my favorite tool isn't a good choice or find a different tool that will work for what I want to do?
So-called "real programmers" always have two or more languages in their tool box. I don't know of any tool that is ideally suited for all kinds of applications.
Those who say that if Rev doesn't implement this or that feature, they're going to abandon it and move to RealBASIC or some other tool are apparently committed to developing applications for which RunRev is not the best choice. I say we should wish those people Godspeed and send them on their way to a tool that WILL do what they want. Their departure isn't a signal that there is something fundamentally wrong with Rev, only an acknowledgment that Rev is like all other tools: great for a lot of things, not so good for some.
On the other hand, if the tool maker commits to making a particular technology or technique work within their tool across the supported platform set, then the company owes its developers one of two things: completion of the work in a satisfactory manner or a clear statement that it will either never happen or won't be a near-term priority. The only real mistake that can be made here, from my viewpoint, is for the company to try to hold on to developers whose needs it will not clearly be able to meet in a reasonable time horizon. This does everyone a disservice. (Note that I'm not saying that's happened here; I don't rely on synthetic speech for my applications so I am not aware of all the history and the issues.)
I now return you to your regularly scheduled conversation.
On Aug 25, 2004, at 10:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:34:17, Barry Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:thisSubject: RE: Do we have synthetic speech in WindowsXP yet?
I'm at the tail end of two years using Rev and we haven't had speech on
WindowsXP. I'm getting ready to move to RealBasic simply because of this
issue. Frankly, I'm quite hesitant to pony up any more $$ for Rev ifisn't fixed.
It is very frustrating to see "key" features left behind for so long just
because Microsoft decided to move forward. If Apple had done the same
thing, I would bet that RunRev would have made it work in the very next
version. Asking the end user to downgrade their speech sdk as a workaround
is totally wrong!
Roger Eller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Shafer, Revolutionary Author of "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought" http://www.revolutionpros.com for more info Available at Runtime Revolution Store (http://www.runrev.com/RevPress)
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
