"Seamless Tiles Generator 2" updated
-= JB =-
sundown at pacifier.com
Sun Oct 12 16:49:51 CDT 2008
Jacque you always provide so much, thank you.
On Oct 12, 2008, at 11:07 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> -= JB =- wrote:
>> I have only been using Revolution for less than a year now and before
>> that I used hyperCard. I know about MetaCard but I thought it was
>> replaced by Rev. So where do I get the MetaCard IDE and after I
>> get it how do I install it properly?
> You can download the MC IDE setup stack, and it will download the
> latest IDE for you and install your copy of the Rev engine into it:
> The process is all automated. I suggest including the Rev
> dictionary option at the bottom of the setup card, since the native
> MC dictionary is years out of date.
>> I have noticed others on the list mention they use MetaCard too.
>> someone please explain why people use MetaCard even though they
>> keep using the latest version of Rev.
> MC IDE is just a very stripped-down set of stacks that allow a
> different way of working with the engine. The primary difference is
> that the IDE is very minimal -- for example, there is no user
> interface for most of the properties you see in Rev's property
> inspector. Instead, a minimal property inspector lets you set the
> most-used properties, but for others you need to know they exist
> and use the message box to set them (or install a third-party or
> original property inspector of your own.) The object browser offers
> less functionality than the application browser in Rev -- it shows
> only the current card objects (but on the other hand, that's
> usually all I'm interested in.) There is no interface at all for
> many things, such as removing a substack, deleting a stack from
> RAM, most preferences, etc. For these things you use the message
> box and you must know the commands. You can write your own plugins
> to do what some of the Rev IDE does if you like. All the MC IDE
> stacks are similarly terse. They expect that you already know the
> capabilities of the engine and are comfortable working with the
> command line. The engine was originally written for Linux/Unix and
> the MC IDE reflects this level of comfort.
> I frequently work in both IDEs depending on the stack I'm working
> with. For example, Rev tracks when a field has changed and puts up
> its "do you want to save" dialog if you change any text in a field.
> MC IDE does not. For those stacks that routinely change text
> temporarily in a field, I always launch MC because I don't want the
> interruption of dismissing the spurious dialog. (I have a small
> word processing stack, for example, that works with text files. I
> don't want the actual word processing stack marked as "dirty" just
> because I typed temporary text into the main field.)
> While the disadvantage (or maybe it's an advantage) is that you
> need to have a good grasp of what the engine can do and the UI is
> minimal, the advantages are that there is almost no interference
> from the IDE at all. A tiny frontscript and a small backscript are
> the only insertions. The IDE does not get in the way, and you can
> be fairly certain that if you see a bug in the MC IDE it is more
> likely to be an engine bug than an IDE problem. The freedom to do
> what you want without interference is much greater in the MC IDE,
> with the caveat that with freedom comes responsibility -- you can
> more easily lose your work or wreck the stack because the
> protections that the Rev IDE offers aren't there.
> For my workflow, there are advantages to both IDEs and I switch
> frequently between them.
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> 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