REALbasic vs. Revolution
rcozens at pon.net
Thu Oct 10 14:01:01 EDT 2002
>Geoff Perlman posted this on the RB mailing list,
>raising some good points which I thought I should reply to. But I'd rather
>not fan the flames of a large off topic conversation on the RB list, and I
>know that anyone seriously considering Revolution vs. RB is likely to be on
>this list, so it seems better to reply here.
Kevin, et al:
You're too good to the folks on the RB list: if they want to spend
their time concentrating on such pointless statements of opinion, fan
the fires and let them waste their time while we get on with issues
But I will take this opportunity to address one issue where a devil's
advocate is desperately needed:
> I would look closely at the quality of the app each can produce. Is the
> interface a truly native interface or does it just try to look native?
Am I the only person in the world who doesn't want my application to
look exactly like every other application on the user's platform? Do
you all wish to allow Apple & Microsoft to dictate the only allowable
metaphors for a basic application UI?
I see application design as a creative art, and I don't feel that art
has matured to the point where exploration of non-institutionalized
techniques should be looked on with such disfavor. Are Apple & MS
human interface guideline police any different than the art police
who kept the impressionists out of the Paris exhibitions?
IMF(oolesh)O, tuning my UI for internal consistency and optimal
handling of the task of the application are more important than
designing it to look like a clone of every other app on the same
platform. If RB doesn't allow the freedom to hide the menu bar or
make an app look totally "non-native", I would see that as stifling
to my creativity and a BIG minus in comparison to RR.
CCW, Serendipity Software Company
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
More information about the use-livecode