Moving the MC IDE forward

[Geoff Canyon]

On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 10:32  AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

<several good examples of how MC is simpler than Rev omitted>

> These are very minor examples, none of which are crucial or 
> insurmountable. I can customize my way out of the first two of them 
> easily. But the lean IDE in MC has its appeal -- precisely because I 
> *don't* have to customize it. It just stays out of my way. I think it 
> is this kind of thing that causes experienced MC users to accuse 
> Revolution of "bloat". It is also this feeling of steamlined 
> useability that caused HyperCard people to accuse MetaCard of "bloat" 
> as well. ;) Hypercard's huge advantage is the way its own IDE remains 
> completely out of sight until you need it.

Then I don't understand all the talk of customizing MC. If it's near 
perfect (for those who like simplicity) the way it is, let it stay that 
way. It won't take a team effort to keep it compatible with any 
foreseeable changes to the engine.

> The most likely answer to your question is that, given human nature, 
> people don't easily change their habits. For myself, I find I use 
> Revolution far more from the message box than from within its many 
> palettes. It's just how I'm used to doing things, and it is much 
> faster because I type fast and I don't have to wait for interface 
> elements to load. The good news for MC users who are moving to Rev is 
> that it works just fine that way.

That's what troubles me: that people will remain with MC, and spend 
effort on adding features into it that already exist in Revolution, out 
of human nature.

Wouldn't it be easier to address the issues you see in Revolution, and 
get the rest of what Rev offers (and will be updated to offer) for 
free, rather than having to re-implement the wheel in MC?

Finally, everyone (who prefers MC) seems bothered by the palettes in 
Revolution. Wouldn't it be possible to simply not open/use those 
palettes?

regards,

Geoff Canyon
gcanyon at inspiredlogic.com