Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

[Trevor DeVore]

On Aug 7, 2004, at 7:18 PM, Ken Ray wrote:
> Well, you'll have to tell that to Real Software (unless you don't 
> think they
> are a true xplat development tool) - see the Declare statement in the
> RealBasic help stack. And Toolbook (although it is not xplat, but IS 
> xTalk)
> has support for accessing the Windows API.
>
> Look, I'm not trying to bust anyone's chops on this - I'm just trying 
> to say
> that to hook Windows developers on Rev, you MUST have SOME ability to 
> access
> outside functionality (DLLs, API calls, ActiveX/COM controls, etc.) -
> otherwise they won't listen about all the good things that Rev can 
> offer to
> development. It's almost like spending hours extolling the virtues of 
> Rev,
> only to find out it can't read or write files. That would be a true 
> downer.
> It's THAT basic, IMHO.
>
> But perhaps I'm wrong at assuming this is a must-have... there are a 
> number
> of Windows developers on this list... too them I ask: am I wrong about 
> this?
> Please, be honest...

I agree with Ken on this.  I would like to see support for calling Win 
APIs, DLLs and ActiveX.  Even though one of the major features of Rev 
is the ability to develop for multiple platforms there are jobs where 
catering to a specific platform is required.

All software that my company creates and sells ourselves is built 
cross-platform but thus far my clients/potential clients have had 
Windows only needs and they want the app we create to integrate with 
Windows technologies.  In these cases I would use Rev not because it 
runs cross-platform but because of the ability to quickly develop 
applications.  When I have to have an external made in order to access 
APIs or get access to common Windows functionality then it adds cost 
and slows down development.  I've ditched all the other tools I used to 
use for desktop apps and decided to use only Rev so if the increase in 
time/money needed to interact with Windows is too great then I would 
have to turn down the job.

Two examples from my experiences where this support would be useful.

1 - I've shared this before I think but I have a project where the app 
I wrote was one in a suite of products that runs on Windows only.  In 
order to access the help files for the suite I had to use a Windows API 
call.  I had to use an external and add another file to the download in 
order to accomplish it.  Being able to calls the Windows API would 
avoid this.

2 - An example of where ActiveX would be useful is in dealing with 
media on Windows.  I am dealing with a project now where I would love 
to be able to use Real Media/Windows Media (SWF too but that can be 
handled by QT which the software uses already) on the Windows side of 
the project because potential customers will have files in this format 
and possibly want to use them in the app.  If I had ActiveX support 
this would be possible and allow the Windows users to work with files 
they are accustomed to working with.  Right now I would have to tell 
them to convert to QuickTime.

I realize that with a cross-platform dev tool it is important to have 
things work correctly across all platforms but I believe there are 
cases where you need to enable access to core OS dependent 
technologies.


-- 
Trevor DeVore
Blue Mango Multimedia
trevor at mangomultimedia.com