Active X support

[tkuypers at pandora.be]

Hear, hear!!!
This is what I ment, This is exactly the point I was making!

Well put!

Ton Kuypers


> From: "Edwin Gore" <edgore at shinra.com>
> Reply-To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:46:54 -0700
> To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Subject: RE: Re: Active X support
> 
> I think people have some widely divergent ideas about what constitutes a cross
> platform development environment.
> 
> To my mind it should be a case of the anything that you do using just RunRev
> runs anywhere, but at the same time it should actually support the platform
> specific features of different operating systems. That way the developer can
> make informed decisions about how they want to handle cross platform issues
> when RunRev doesn't natively support something.
> 
> Adding support for Applescript, XCMDs, ActiveX and whatever the OS-X/unix
> equivelents might be doesn't reduce the cross-platform capabiilities of
> RunRev, it increases it. Those are all important parts of the individual
> platforms, and if you don't consider support for them, it makes the
> development system too limited to appeal to developers across the board. If
> you only support the lowest common denominator of what can be supported on ALL
> platforms, you end up with what is a very limited subset of the power of each
> individual operating system.
> 
> ActiveX is a big part of the Windows architecture these days. There are
> thousands of controls out there already, and it would be great to get access
> to them. Not being able to makes RunRev much less attractive to Windows users,
> and there are several of them. For Revolution to really succeed I think it's
> important that it support platform specific technologies on Windows, Mac, and
> on Linux, when they are an important part of the operating system. A
> development system that is best of breed for Windows, Mac, Lijnux AND
> crossplatform is a much more powerful proposition than one that is just the
> best Crossplatform system, but not really the best for any particular system.
> 
> I think that Revolution did the right thing in creating an externals library
> that supports programmers creating externals that can re-compile for other
> platforms using the same code, but I think that supoorting the externals
> architectures that the indivual OSs already supoort is just as important.
> 
>> ----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>> From: Stephen Quinn Barncard
>> <stephenREVOLUTION at barncard.com>
>> To: use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
>> Sent: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:11:26
>> 
>> Huh? My post was about inclusion, not taking out
>> stuff. Please don't
>> quote my words out of context for your own imagined
>> conclusions.
>> 
>> sqb
>> 
>>>>> Active X -- Great for windoze folks, useless
>> for Mac and Unix...
>>>>>  Wouldn't this be against the 'cross platform
>> concept" of Rev?
>>>> 
>>>>  Exactly ... I think thera are a lot of "Windoze
>> only to do everything
>>>>  but nothing..." tools, imho we dont need
>> another one...
>>>>  regards
>>>>  Wolfgang M. Bereuter
>>>> 
>>> Hmmmm
>>> So if you can't have it on the Mac, you don't want
>> it to be possible on the
>>> PC as well?
>>> Then how about killing AppleScript support on the
>> Mac?
>>> 
>>> Ton Kuypers
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-revolution mailing list
>> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolu
>> tion
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 
>