The engine, the IDE, and The Big Grok (was [Ticket#: 2006040510000641])

[Richard Gaskin]

David Burgun wrote:
> Once you understand the separation of the engine and the IDE in  
> RunRev, you can see that the concept of the engine and all it's cool  
> features is sound. However, when a new user evaluates RunRev, unless  
> they understand xTalk, they don't immediately see this separation and  
> assume that IDE bugs are part and parcel of the whole thing, and in a  
> way they are right.

I believe you've hit the nail on the head.

Moreover, I believe that the need to grok the difference between the 
engine and the IDE is not just important for new users, but perhaps in 
some ways for the vendor as well.

I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and I believe a 
fundamental misunderstanding of the distinct roles of the engine and the 
IDE lies at the heart of most issues with the product and its community:

- the unusually high bug density
- the fickle nature of the low-end product
- confusion over the license
- uneasiness about the marketing focus
- relationships with third-party vendors
- the (mis)perceived "benefit" in changing the language name
- the open source message
- viability and profitability

In many ways this is a very, very subtle distinction, deserving of some 
time to put together a cohesive argument.  It touches more on issues 
related to philosophy of design more than anything technical, and as a 
whole I believe it's a very positive message if conveyed correctly.

I'll see what I can come up with to articulate this as best I can, and 
will post the result to revJournal.com once I ship some client projects 
needing my attention....

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