So RunRev wants more of my money- what has been fixed?

[Richard Gaskin]

Bob Sneidar wrote:

 > Well I have to say that Runrev's track record of improving things
 > (eventually) is quite good.

I would have to agree.  I can sympathize with the OP's feelings, but 
here in my own office I've been buying software long enough that I have 
a policy:

I only pay for what I can use in my hands right now.

If a feature I need will be available tomorrow, I'm quite happy to wait 
until tomorrow to buy it.  I have plenty of other things to keep me busy 
in the meantime, and there are many ways to satisfy any development need.

Whenever a LiveCode product does what you need, it's almost always the 
highest-ROI option you'll find.

But when it doesn't quite yet, you're still no worse off than the 
millions of developers using something else.

I see LiveCode as a sort of secret weapon for rapid development.  If I 
can't deploy it in a particular engagement, I still have everything else 
in my arsenal available to me in the meantime, and even then I only need 
to draw on those when a project requires that we not wait.

And when it does what I need, it delivers in spades.


 > ps. Richmond, please don't chastise me for calling Linux support
 > minor.

RunRev has done an admirable job of enhancing its Linux engine, and I 
can understand the current irony of that engine not having feature 
parity with the other desktop editions while costing twice as much.

Linux development at RunRev is a limited priority for them, and while I 
may prefer it otherwise at least the reasons are understandable.

The state of the LiveCode Linux engine allows me to do most of what I 
need there, and for the rest it's been a source of inspiration:  I've 
begun looking into Python and Quickly. ;)

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
  LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv