IDE inspectors should reveal all properties

[Dave Cragg]

At 9:58 am +0000 26/11/03, Graham Samuel wrote:

>I'd really like to know what the profile of a 'typical' MC user
>was/is. I strongly suspect that it would be different from that of a
>'typical' RR user. We seem to be pretty good at feedback, judging by
>this list...

I think MC users were once described as "mature". If that means 
mature as in cheese (i.e. old and smelly) then it fits one user's 
profile at least. Living Fossils all of us, so you should feel at 
home, Graham. :)

One reason for lack of feedback on Xavier's additions to the MC 
development environment may have been a perceived lack of need by 
many MC users. Not that we don't see shortcomings in the IDE, but I 
imagine each user has his/her own ideas for what would constitute an 
improvement. And as modifying the environment or making additions is 
relatively easy, many have probably made their own "improvements". In 
my own case, many of these changes are made ad hoc. Typically, I'll 
make a utility stack for each project I work on which lets me poke 
and pry to my heart's content. These utlities won't win prizes in the 
interface stakes, but they get the job done. It's this kind of 
flexibility that endeared me to Metacard. (And probably turned others 
off.)

When Rev was first released, the IDE was the only thing that 
differentiated it from Metacard. Therefore the MC users who enjoyed 
MC's flexibility saw no reason to switch.  Since then, RunRev have 
added some *heavy* features as externals (database connectivity and 
XML) giving solid reasons for us obstinate MC users to purchase Rev. 
And many have done so, I believe.

I guess too that Rev's feature-rich IDE gives higher expctations to 
users. You don't hear too many complaints from old-timers about the 
MC IDE in the same way you don't get complaints about the food served 
in the local greasy-spoon.

Now that RunRev has brought the engine and IDE under the same roof, I 
think there is less need for them to make the IDE the main selling 
point of the product, and they can afford to make the IDE more 
flexible. However, I wouldn't want them to rush to do that. 
Improvements and additions to the engine would be my choice of 
priorites. The continuing development of a solid and general purpose 
IDE would be next. And the opening up to alternative IDEs would come 
after that.


Cheers
Dave
(getting hungry from all these food analogies)