Reassurance re: crashing

[Dar Scott]

On Thursday, June 6, 2002, at 10:15 AM, Rob Cozens wrote:

> Early on I experienced unstableness in the Revolution platform; 
> but once I had crashed enough times, I could determine what 
> actions (often blindlessly trying something I had not done before 
> to determine the best way to do it) caused crashes and a. change 
> my work habits &/or b. learn the correct, ie non-crashing, 
> approach.

For me, unfortunately, I don't remember what the good or bad habits 
are.  I crash much less now than before, no doubt avoiding certain 
things, but I don't know how or why.

Because of this, I think there is value in newbies reporting 
details on crashes like this.

(I might be still a newbie, but I think I'm more of a sophomore at 
this point; I might sound like I know what I'm doing at times but 
create chaos when I speak.)

The bad part of this training through crashing, is that I probably 
avoid methods that are now stable (or will soon be) or mistakenly 
avoid methods not related to crashes.  It may be that reports of 
newbie experiences in these methods might win me back.  The newbie, 
not knowing any better, will plunge right in.

I have high hopes for Revolution, including the engine.  Though a 
powerful development environment and a powerful programming 
language--because of that power--often has ways to effectively say, 
"Crash!", I think that--except for those cases--Revolution should 
not crash.  Ever.  So I would not characterize "non-crashing" 
approaches as "correct" approaches, but simply temporary 
workarounds.  This might sound like I "demand perfection", and 
maybe so, but only in a positive sense, not a complaining sense; I 
have a vacuum that is partially filled by every improvement 
(blessing) from runrev and I appreciate what those folks are 
doing.  And if they set like high goals for Revolution, they have 
my support.

Dar Scott