about Galaxy

Sivakatirswami katir at hindu.org
Mon Sep 25 16:34:33 CDT 2006


Since my inadvertent public post seems to have initiated such a wonderful
"churning of the butter" -- doubt a lot of sweet Ghee will surface. I

Let me clarify again: It's not about Galaxy, it's about Rev:

My thought for Rev was simplistic, I don't think it takes
a huge brain, or giant software architecture marketing machinations
  to see what really belongs in the Rev IDE

(I don't see the legacy "metacard divide" between the engine and the IDE as
at all as a useful paradigm for success of the product... IMHO, it would 
be akin
to saying you can get a version of Photoshop that allows you to place 
individual pixels
to your hearts content, or, maybe you want the UI! )

Maybe I'm way too naive, but:

3 users;

1) 15 year old Johnny at school with is teacher looking over his
shoulder who is
trying to decide to purchase a 50 seat edu license for Revolution (or not)

2) 35 Mary, ace abobe designer photoshop wizarddress, print magazine
layout and web designer
who uses dreamweaver and is wants to do some of her own apps.

3) 45 enterprise programmer who could care less about the colors of
buttons, will create an inventory control app for a  global company with
distribution centers in 5 nations.

Each of these will make a decision in the first 30 minute, 3 hours, 3
days, 3 months (having purchased Studio as an evaluation exercise).
The decision to "buy in to Rev" "averaged" across the above
three users' scenarios will involve, to a large extent,
the facility-experience with which they do just 4 things, out of the box:

1) create: objects and set props
2) layout: arrange objects in the visual space.
3) text: enter labels, fields
4) interactivity: write and debug scripts.


Point is simply: if a 3rd party developer identifies a need in the
"usage space" within the above three scenarios,  a case could be made that
it "hints" very strongly at some gap or enhancement that could
might benefit both users and Rever were it incorporated, into the IDE,
Such that new users are not having, from day one, to evaluate
if they need a 3rd party plug in. Such that the IDE evolves to "wow!"
status for trial users and "deep satisfaction" for long standing users,
within those 4 usage scenarios.

This is does not advocate a Microsoft hegemony model for Revolution to "take
over" all 3 party products, as the options for tools outside the basic
usage box still verges on infinite.

2cents

Sivakatirswami




Josh Mellicker wrote:
> I use many products with a plugin architecture: After Effects, Final
> Cut Pro, several audio applications. It's a great way for users to
> customize their tool to their own situation.
> 
> But, it seems like the Rev user base is too small to justify two
> teams working on IDEs... if I was Rev I would try to buy Galaxy,
> integrate it really well, optimize it and eliminate bugs... that is
> the kind of scripting environment that will convert Director &
> RealBasic users.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:55 AM, Jerry Daniels wrote:
> 
>> My point was: not supporting or buying third party add ons has
>> nothing to do with the current, past or future state of Revolution.
>> 
> _______________________________________________ use-revolution
> mailing list use-revolution at lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to
> subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: 
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 




More information about the use-livecode mailing list