Greg: I think that we are looking for a similar solution:
-- drag and drop graphic programming -- the ability to encapsulate code visually I would also like the ability to "alias" encapsulated code so that an alias could be dropped onto another media element and instantly acquire all the behavior of the original capsule. That way if you need to make a large-scale change, adjust the original and all downstream alias change accordingly. That's the neat thing about visual OOP. It's not much different than having master pages in a graphics application. You mention Axel. A couple weeks ago I mentioned mTropolis: "mTropolis used a section, subsection, scene metaphor (I understand Revolution uses a card metaphor and Director uses a film metaphor). Every piece of media is an asset. Drag modifier icons onto assets to give them functionality, such as sending messages. Set the parameters of a modifier with a window of pull-down lists or fields. This concept of programming by drag-and-drop icons is prevalent in Quickmedia (http://www.omegaconcept.fr/index.php?oc=52), but what set mTropolis apart was behaviors, basically containers of modifiers that permitted complex actions to be built up. A whole behavior could be switched on or off or copied to other media (aliasing). Glen Hunter does a good job of capturing the mTropolis experience (see http://www.cbd-hq.com/articles/2000/000501gh_mtropolis.asp): a component-based development tool. The intuitive interface and OOP power made development fast and -- get this -- fun. The mTropolis reference guide also set a standard. You can d/l a copy (4.8 MB) at http://www.arch.columbia.edu/DDL/cad/AOI/S99/basics/Reference.pdf and the quick reference quide (260 kB) is at http://www.arch.columbia.edu/DDL/cad/AOI/S99/basics/Quick_ref.pdf"; A few people responded and, on a separate thread, it seems that many Revolution users are doing some soul searching as to why Revolution isn't more popular. A lot of people have suggestions. Mine -- and I suspect yours -- would be to create a more visual logic. There seems to be a resurgence of interest in visual logic. One of my old favorites may be making a comeback. See http://www.richardsnotes.org/archives/2005/03/29/chipwits/ If we pay Richard Gaskin's bills for a couple months, he has offered to crank out an mTropolis look and feel to Revolution. ; ) --- Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is my obsession to take the very simple things I > do with code and > "encapsulate" them inside a graphic for drag and > drop usage later. I > know that not everything can be represented by a > graphic, but certainly, > if one uses the "noun" / "verb" analogy of > programming with some form of > language, the same analogy can be brought a step > further by assigning > many lines of code that describe a tangible "object" > or behavior that is > visual in nature, and assign that "thing" or that > "action" in a > descriptive picture. It is just more pleasant and > gratifying and much > more compact. This would help programming to become > the instantly > addictive thing that will keep new users interested. > Especially with > visually rich applications, it makes sense to > program or build such an > application with visual elements as the building > blocks rather than many > many, relatively non-descriptive words and phrases. > Even Transcript, > with its very English like syntax is not that > compact or pleasing to use > for creating a primarily visual application. > > Having spouted all of this, I must confess that I am > an artist and not a > programmer. I'm trying to find a language that > helps me create visual > things like games, visually, not symbolically. I > have investigated > nearly every solution currently available, and find > them lacking. The > closest thing I ever came upon was AxelEdge by > Mindavenue. Every > interactive thing that could be done, in 3D, could > be done visually. > And the examples were quite complex and intriguing, > as well as very > entertaining. Unfortunately, like most visual > solutions, it was too > expensive and did not fly. Now they are in the > category of "legacy" > software, having been swallowed up by a large > Canadian cabinet making > software company. For a quick reference, look at > some of the examples > over at > > http://www.mindavenue.com > > My question is whether Revolution would be a good > solution for > developing a programming system that allowed users > to encapsulate any > piece of code inside a graphic, for drag and drop > method assembly and, > ultimately, the creation of more software. > > By the way, if anyone is interested, AxelEdge 1.5 > can be acquired for > around $35. Version 2.0 can be acquired for around > $135. I'd like to > know what everyone thinks about Revolution for this > kind of application, > and also what they think of Mindavenue's approach to > creating > interactive experiences without programming. > > Thanks, > > Greg Smith > > _______________________________________________ > use-revolution mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and > manage your subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution > __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
