Duration of non supported applications
wjm at wjm.org
Sat Mar 17 18:27:17 CDT 2007
> Strange I agree with most of yours!
That's the power of logic for you ;)
> Could well be. I'd find it hard to think of an application in a University
> setting that has that sort of requirements stability - which is why I'd
> stand by going with the people and not the technology - maybe an app will
> not technically need updating over the next 3 years - but most University
> applications I come across need annual updates because the requirements
> change - new teachers demand new things - and courses evolve pretty fast
> (with some exceptions). Perhaps this is the case for Signe - I can't
> it in the courses I know about.
The point about updating the content is valid; however if there is a
facility, or front-end, for doing this with the app(s) in question, that may
not be a consideration. I'm sure there's a wide range of universities...
dynamic ones like Brigham Young and perhaps more conservative ones. But
let's say that Signe's is one of the faster-moving ones and it would need to
be updated based on changing requirements....
> A main reason to stick with Rev is this community and the help given [...]
> My advice was to stick with a human centered approach - if there is a Rev
> developer or a teacher that wants to learn stick with that - if not don't
> encourage the university to put more resources into an application without
> the human resources to mange the inevitable change in requirements.
I'd wager that a first-year comp sci undergraduate with no prior knowledge
of xTalk could be sat down in front of the typical Revolution stack and make
any updates required in the time it took for the other three routes to get
past the research/requirements phase. That's the great strength of our
> I can do pretty well anything I need with [Revolution], more reliably and
> faster than with any other platform.
Ah, maybe we agree after all!
More information about the use-livecode