Accusations of confluence . . .

[Richard Gaskin]

Mathewson wrote:
> Maybe I am wrong: but, reading recent posts I get a funny
> feeling that the MC IDE might be being steered in such a
> way that there is not that much difference between it and
> the RR IDE. Certainly the inclusion of components of the RR
> IDE, while not in itself being a bad thing, makes:
> 
> 1. The difference between the 2 IDEs seem smaller than
> previously,
> 
> and
> 
> 2. Licensing issues become more byzantine: how much of the
> 'sauce' will remain open-source and how much of it will
> become proprietary - and how does one tease out the bits?

I share this concern, and like the other contributors I feel the 
greatest risk would be to make the MC IDE too complex, its code 
therefore less robust, and our reason for choosing it would be at risk.

That's why I'm most in favor of enhancements being implemented as 
options.  The Plugin Manager was the exception, but necessary to make 
all other options easily available as such.

Anything involving the import of components from Rev would be purely 
optional, just as using the MC Dictionary (the one which imports the 
latest info from a Rev install) is optional, while leaving the original 
(though now woefully out of date) version intact.


> While it has been pointed out that Metacard licenses are
> now only available when one buys a Runtime Revolution
> license 

As Klaus pointed out, this isn't exactly new. :)

> (which, at least, in some ways, makes the idea of
> Metacard as an 'alternative' to RR seem a bit redundant)

Not as long as the MC IDE prefers to emphasize engine-based solutions 
and avoid the property and message redundancy of that other IDE.

If we stick to our mandate there will always be a place for MC:

   Know the engine
   Trust the engine
   Use the engine to do as much of the work as possible


> it is perfectly possible to use Metacard, with a 10-line
> script limit, without a licence (Oh, No, here we go again)
> - how long will that continue to be possible, if, like the
> 'Bionic Man' an increasing number of its constituent
> components are 'borrowed' from RR?

Engine licensing is independent of IDE design.  RunRev has long made 
their feelings about the Starter Kit known.  While I disagree and have 
much anecdotal data to back up my opinion, without a formal study it's 
just my opinion against theirs.

But more importantly they own the engine and I don't, so my opinion only 
gets me so far.  RunRev has made it clear that they prefer a 
time-limited demo model over a feature-limited model, and it wouldn't 
surprise me if they one day put the enforcement of their model into the 
engine, much as Scott Raney put his enforcement of his model into it. 
They have every right to do so, and since we need an Enterprise license 
to do any meaningful work with MC anyway I doubt it will affect any of 
us at all.

In fact, there may be upsides to such a move.  Once enforcement is in 
the engine, RunRev can be more openly supportive of alternative IDE 
efforts.  Mark Waddingham has been very helpful with assisting me in 
maintaining the MC IDE, even making special request that I test 
pre-release versions to help ensure compatiblity.  If that's any 
indication of things to come, I'd say the future looks quite bright for 
any and all IDEs.  As Dr. Raney used to say, "Let a thousand flowers 
bloom". :)

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com