Script Limits vs dynamic programming

[Robert Brenstein]

>
>This is missing the point.  The principle advantage of metacard/RR 
>is that it provides for dynamic programming *and* it does so in a 
>cross-platform way.  I have and use c, c++ compilers, Futurebasic, 
>RealBasic, and so on, but for different purposes.  None of these 
>other programming environments is *dynamic*.  Scott Raney's 
>important statement that metacard is written in metacard was not to 
>make the point that, as with c or Basic or Fortran compilers one 
>could write a c, or Basic or Fortran compiler with it, but rather 
>that the system is bootstrapped. The possibility of producing 
>``standalones'' in hypercard and metacard  has unfortunately helped 
>disguise this fact to the point where many (Shari C is a fine 
>example, here, and more power to her) think of metacard/RR as just 
>another IDE with fine cross-platform capabilities.  That it no doubt 
>is, but that's not what makes it either unique or important: it is 
>the possibility for dynamic programming that the engine provides, as 
>with hypercard.  Limiting script length and ``do'' to non-licensed 
>RR users means that *only* licensed RR users of the stacks I produce 
>can can partake of the dynamic nature.  Thus, rather being an 
>essential part of metacard/RR, this dynamism becomes a feature 
>*only* licensed users (developers?) can use, but can't retain in the 
>stacks they produce.  By all means, strip it out of standalones if 
>need be, but leave it as an essential feature of stacks.
>
>For those who remember them, think of the completely different 
>experience one has programming in and using TILs (threaded 
>interpretative languages) such as APL, and forth: as with hypercard, 
>programming is not distinct from using; they are seamlessly 
>integrated.  *That* is what we will be losing by these limits.  For 
>those who use metacard/RR to produce applications without those 
>dynamic capabilities, I can understand why they don't feel these 
>limits amount to much.  But for some, at least me, it is the 
>dynamism that is my whole reason for using metacard, recommending it 
>to students, and so on.
>
>John R. Vokey
>

Well said, John. I am actually in both shoes. I produce standalones 
that do not need the dynamic scripting or function fine with the 
current limits, but I would love to use MC/Rev for dynamic scripting 
as well. Except that 10-line limit is too restrictive for me.

I tried to get over it in the past, but the solution offered by MC 
was too expensive and Rev never followed with my inquiry. Kevin's 
tinkering with the script limits now just set me off to not only stop 
it but rather go the other way and create means to increase those 
limits when needed.

I am afraid, though, that such uses continue to be too small market 
for Rev to worry about.

Robert