MetaCard/Revolution Evangelism

[Wilhelm Sanke]

I would like to comment on some responses to Eric Engle's original post. 
As I only receive the digest and could not respond myself quickly to the 
individual answers, I use sort of a digest format for this response, but 
I try to keep this short.

 Richard Gaskin ,14 Nov:

> MetaCard no longer exists as a product.  The
> only engine they can buy is from RunRev and comes with the Rev IDE, 
> which is
> a little less daunting to some than the more spartan MC IDE.

You can still get Metacard - in the form of the Starter Kit - from the 
Metacard site ftp. metacard.com. You will need a Rev + included Metacard 
license (you have to specify that in your order) to take advantage of 
the full Metacard version.

> So since they need to get the latest engine from RunRev anyway they 
> might as
> well learn the Rev IDE and avoid the hoop-jumping needed to run the 
> current
> engine with the MC IDE.

The hoop-jumping is very simple for Windows: You just rename 
"revolution.exe" to "mc.exe" and put the new mc.exe into you Metacard 
folder.

It certainly does not hurt to have a look at the Rev IDE; it is a 
product in a medium stage of development, which means that there are 
quite a number of flaws that need fixing, features that still have to be 
optimised, many scripts that have to be shortened, and some really 
annoying bugs that make parts of the IDE practically unusable in certain 
situations.
What I really like about Revolution is the Transcript Dictionary, which 
thanks to Richard Gaskin can now be used within the Metacard IDE.

For the current winter semester I again rely on Metacard for my 
mulimedia workshop and I share MisterX's opinion.

MisterX, 14 Nov 2003:

> MC is almost dead BUT,
> Here it still kicks Butt!
> What is now mature
> Does not follow nature
>
> What is today obsolete
> Of basics is still replete
> If sight is all, RR is a deal
> But to mind, MC is a better meal


Richard Gaskin, 14 Nov 2003:

> For newcomers, though, I think Rev makes a better starting point.

I am inclined to think otherwise. Students in our workshops - that (as 
long as there was both a Revolution and Metacard Starter Kit) could 
choose between the IDEs - overwhelmingly preferred Metacard because of 
its greater simplicity and stability.
I might add a statement from Judy Perry, made in a different context on 
Nov 15 (use-revolution list), that fits here:

"Now, one could probably argue that Rev can be highly complex, too.  But
this is not the face one wishes to present to people who have never been
exposed to any sort of programming at all -- they'll run screaming for
their PowerPoint software. "

> We can all learn a lot from Scott's scripting style.

I assume this hope comprises the members of the Revolution team.

> With so many people using the Rev IDE and more newcomers every day, anyone
> serious about enriching the productivity of Trancript programmers will at
> least consider implementing tools as plug-ins that will also work in 
> Rev; if
> you have to go with just one you'll reach more people favoring Rev.

All of my tools can be used with both IDEs and some of them - like my 
RevBrowser - work better and more reliably than the corresponding parts 
of the Rev IDE, in case I should do some programming with Revolution..
I add here part of a post I sent on Oct. 10th to lorin at runrev.com in 
response to her "research project" of new Revolution users (although I 
was one the early alpha and beta testers of Revolution - you can find my 
name when clicking at Help and About Revolution in the Rev MenuBar - I 
was somehow included in the enquete when I renewed my license):

"The new Revolution  IDE will have to be improved a great deal to reach 
the level of stability and ease of use Metacard had reached over the 
years. There are many points of critique mentioned on the Revolution and 
Metacard lists  (concerning the number and nature of bugs in the IDE, 
the complicated structure of the IDE, the slow performance, and perhaps 
most important that the programming itself is not "streamlined" enough, 
i.e. that sometimes 1000 lines of code are used to achieve specific 
goals where 200 would have been enough.).

Of course, most of those that criticize the new development (including 
the new marketing strategies) wish to maintain and improve an authoring 
platform that is really outstanding compared to most other authoring 
systems. In this sense both longtime Metacard users and new users of 
Revolution most probably have the intention to contribute to the 
development and improvement of the Metacard and Revolutions IDEs and the 
basic engine used by both."

Richard Gaskin , Nov 15th:

> > What do you mean, locked up tight?
>
> The scripts in the Distribution Builder are encrypted.
>
> > How does Rev's differ?
>
> Rev's Distribution Builder and the MC IDE's Standalone Builder differ 
> in two
> significant ways:
>
>  - Rev's does much more
>  - MC's is modifiable


What should be added here is a reference to the fact that the present  
Rev Distribution Builder is intolerably slow in some situations with 
larger stacks. Build times of more than half an hour for stacks from 
which you can build standalones with Metacard in 3 seconds! See my 
earlier post in the thread "Speed differences between the Metacard and 
Revolution IDEs" a few days ago.

I very much hope that Metacard will be actively supported as a 
continuing alternative IDE and as an essential part of the Revolution 
project - both by the Revolution team and Metacard adherents. I think 
that Richard Gaskin as the chosen chairman of the "Metacard maintenance 
crew" will see to it that this alternative - that would be beneficial to 
the  whole xtalk community - can be realized.

Regards,

Wilhelm Sanke