HC convert: help with text as graphic or rotated text

[Richmond Mathewson]

On 25/12/2009 21:02, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> Richmond Mathewson wrote:
>> RunRev will bother about better text management/manipulation
>> stuff when, either, enough financial pressure is brought to bear, or 
>> one of their big-time customers (???????) demands it.
>
> Or when they can work out how to provide seamless text capabilities 
> across multiple operating systems, each with its own specs. This will 
> require a complete rewrite of the field object. I've spoken to Mark 
> Waddingham about this and believe me, it isn't a trivial task.

Well, one would suppose both what you have written and what I have 
written will combine to a certain extent as motivating
factors - I don't quite know why it seems rude to mention the fact that 
we live in a capitalist world and that Runtime Revolution
is part of that world.

>
> Rewriting the field object, which is indeed on their list of things to 
> do, will also integrate unicode so that it works without any special 
> commands or settings. When I asked Mark when this might happen, he 
> told me to go read the 6,000 pages of the unicode specs and get back 
> to him.
>
> The field object is one of the most complex and snarly bits of code in 
> the entire engine. Raney called it "the beast" and I'd be surprised if 
> privately the team didn't have even stronger words for it.

Why, Jacques, cannot all postings from "those in the know" be as 
informative as your are?

Wow; integrating unicode would be marvellous. I have read about 300 
pages of the unicode specs and can quite honestly say
that I understood very little indeed.

>
>> If you want to believe RunRev's propaganda, they are
>> doing 'fine-and-dandy' right now with people trampling bodies in the 
>> streets just to get a copy of Studio or Enterprise; personally
> > I don't believe that at all -

Well, as RunRev seem quite good at keeping some of the information you 
mention below close to their collective chest
I can only go on what I see.

>
> But you should. As a RevSelect vendor, I see how many new people are 
> coming in and the response has been astounding. Most of the newcomers 
> do not join the mailing list, some are on the forums instead. And many 
> don't join either one. The current megabundle promotion has been one 
> of the most successful in RR's history. Kudos to them for that.

I am very glad to hear it; as I am well aware of the very great 
difference between RR 2.6 (my previous version) and RR 4, and they
can only have come about through a tremendous amount of work.

It might behoove RunRev to announce the number of sales slap-bang in the 
middle of their website (lots of other companies
do that); it would impress at least one person 'out here'.

>
>> the rather low level of
>> attendance at the Edinburgh conference what a complete shock to me
>
> It shouldn't have been. I almost didn't go myself. Scotland is far 
> away and fairly costly to get to if you live in a distant country.

I wonder whether RunRev wouldn't be better, in future, to have a North 
American conf. and a European conf.  However, I suspect
a European conf. wouldn't pay for itself.

I am sad to see that a Scots Software company is not more supported on 
the Scots side of the pond.

>
>> Supercard can do all sorts of things with text that RunRev cannot
>
> Yes. They only have to write for OS X, which has built-in hooks for 
> all sort of text manipulation. Now multiply the effort by several 
> operating systems, each of which does it differently. The scope of the 
> endeavor is huge. Mark's been working out how to manage it for some 
> time now.

I am well aware of that; I use RunRev because its advantages over 
Supercard well outweigh its disadvantages (which, as far as I am
concerned are only the text aspects).

>
>> The argument that RunRev can deploy on Mac, Win, Lin and all sorts of 
>> other "funny" platforms
>> that most people have absolutely nothing to do with; while Supercard 
>> cannot, is not enough
>> in and of itself to claim superiority over Supercard.
>
> RR supports OS X, three kinds of Windows, and Linux. Seems pretty 
> standard to me.

Very much so (at the moment); but . . .

Um; Intel SPARC, SUN, Iris, UNIX . . . off in the boondocks, nicht?

Thank you very much indeed for answering my 'onslaught' in a fairly 
comprehensive fashion, that, at least in
my case, explains all sorts of things I was wondering about for ages and 
felt nobody had explained adequately.

sincerely, Richmond Mathewson.