Constellation's Great, But the Rev IDE Doesn't Suck

[Richard Gaskin]

Charles Hartman wrote:
> 
> On Oct 18, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
> 
>>> 2.  The documentaion is still poor.
>>>
>> I disagree, but that is certainly a matter of judgment. I think the  
>> docs are somewhere between quite adequate and excellent depending  on 
>> the topic. Spotty to be sure, but "poor"? I don't think so.
> 
> 
> (as still a beginner who needs the Docs a lot) I agree that they're  
> very good -- it's just that they are *deathly* slow. Not for a  "filter 
> with" in the Dictionary (though I appreciate the D&M gadget  for that 
> anyway), but for the Topics.

Agreed.  Great content (faaaaaaaaaaaar more extensive than what comes in 
the box with Director and most other apps from the major publishers), 
but the shell's emphasis of using well-formed XML over a more efficient 
storage/indexing format creates unnecessary impediments relative to the 
lightning performance of Rev's native object model.

In the Files section of the MC IDE working group there's a shell a 
couple of us built which suck up the thousands of tiny Transcript 
Dictionary files and imports them into a single stack using Rev's native 
objects for storage -- mcTranscriptDict.mc.sit at:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MC_IDE/files/Extras/>

If there's sufficient interest and joining the group to get one file 
seems annoying, I can mirror that file at a simpler location.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com