Rev_rant part 1
wjm at wjm.org
Thu Nov 23 23:41:57 CST 2006
I'm a little late responding to this thread, but I'd urge you to review any
messages you've sent to the list and be sure your thoughts on the desired
vs. actual behavior -- whether you deem them software bugs, documentation
bugs, or enhancement requests -- are dutifully recorded in Bugzilla. The
development team is working very hard on a pure bug-fix version that will be
freely distributed to everyone who bought Rev 2.7 (as well as anyone who had
an active license as of Feb 1). Only items in Bugzilla are guaranteed to be
reviewed during this period.
"Dave" <dave at looktowindward.com> wrote in
message news:AC0BE0E2-939F-4A1E-818B-3D9029940935 at looktowindward.com...
> On 14 Nov 2006, at 13:56, Bernard Devlin wrote:
>> Dave said:
>> I decided early on that to be really efficient in
>> RunRev you need to develop your own framework (or use a 3rd party
>> system), if you do this right you can obtain the maximum code and
>> screen design re-use. The problems that I found were because I was
>> doing things that probably had not been tested and probably doing
>> things that 95% of RunRev Scripters/Programmers don't do!
>> Well, I think that this might well explain the differences.
>> Are you the same Dave who was developing his ISM library?
>> If so, I remember you were working at a level of abstraction that is
>> quite unusual (I believe) among Rev users. That's not to criticise
>> you - it's fantastic you are thinking about these problems like that and
>> trying to implement them in Rev. But that is going to lead you to edge
>> cases where there are going to be bugs and/or inconsistent behaviors.
>> If one pushes any platform to its limits, then there are going to be
>> problems that have not yet been found and dealt with.
> Yes, I agree, but in this case I'm really not sure what the solution is,
> I think it's a bug, but other RunRev'ers/MC'ers may disagree, and, since
> the documentation does not really cover what should happen in this case,
> it's really difficult to know what to do. However with the minimum of
> effort the documentation could be changed which would have meant I'd have
> found the work-around a lot sooner and so would the next person (which
> could be you!).
>> You pushed Rev further than most people. You encountered more bugs/
>> undocumented behaviours/inconsistent behaviours than most people. You
>> end up with the idea that Rev is really buggy. If Rev was a lot less
>> flexible and dynamic, I think it would be a lot easier to find bugs and
>> make behaviours more consistent.
> I don't think that it's all that buggy and I agree that I pushed the
> boundaries, however no one can deny that bugs that have been around since
> the dawn of creation [of RunRev] are still there!
>> I'm using Rev with my own framework too to maximize code re-use, but in
>> an entirely different way from you. My way hasn't led me to run across
>> the bugs you've found.
> Well, remember, that:
> put the cp1 of this [thing] into me --on a field
> May not work and when it doesn't you may well spend ages tracking it down
> and then ages trying to figure out a work around!!
>> It's great to have someone like you here pushing the boundary. But you
>> are wrong to conclude from that everyone else experiences Rev to be as
>> buggy as you do. (It is not that buggy for me.)
> I haven't said that I think everyone has experienced the same problems as
> me, but from reading this list on and off for 3 years, there are
> questions and problems and bugs/undocumented behaviours/ inconsistent
> behaviours that have not been fixed either in the Engine, the IDE or the
> Documentation for a long time.
> All the Best
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode