So RunRev wants more of my money- what has been fixed?
stephenREVOLUTION2 at barncard.com
Thu Oct 13 04:08:05 EDT 2011
I think it was cool that Runrev listened to us on the list, many DEMANDED a
plugin, stating that it was the 'Holy Grail' of web development.
So they MADE ONE. I was impressed. They 'matched' the browser document
model with a Rev card/stack. Wow.
realized with all the trouble I'd seen making the plugin work in 'all
browsers', that an approach that used either a server-based solution with
approach that started up stacks that live online would be a more consistent
user and developer experience.
I think it was in the middle of the plug-in period that Runrev changed focus
and started their quest for the iPhone project. Judging by the quantity of
posts about phones, I'd say it was a pretty good decision.
On 12 October 2011 23:59, Chipp Walters <chipp at altuit.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Admin <admin at mfelkerco.com> wrote:
> > <snip>.
> > To say I was let down is an
> > understatement. I lost my primary mode of income because the web
> > deployment module, which supposedly worked, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY DID
> > NOT WORK.
> Wow. Betting your primary source of income on a new rev browser plugin
> technology where it is pretty easy to vet the facts:
> A) Plugins for browsers are, er.. NOT a great way to deploy software. Just
> search this list for rev plugin-- there's tons of information why this is
> true AND..
> B) Further searches should tell you the rev plugin is and always has been a
> bit sketchy at best.
> Maybe it's just our company, but when we architect an app for clients, be
> it LC, Flex, .NET, HTML5 or any new framework, we spend the necessary
> upfront time researching (most importantly) what it CAN'T do. Frequently we
> build test bed mockups just to be sure.
> I'm sure it's a hard lesson learned, but I would assume not one you will be
> forgetting soon.
> And YOU ARE CORRECT. RunRev should NOT publish a half-complete product
> unless they call it beta software. The fact is, with LC, some things are
> much more finished and polished than other things. Unfortunately for you,
> the one you chose is fairly rough.
> I believe UNICODE has been on the "coming next" list (along with a new
> improved field object) for the last 5+ years. Most of us who have been
> around for quite a while know the sweet spots, and the potholes, so many
> times it's no big deal to us when Unicode misses another upgrade revision.
> We weren't counting on it. Unfortunately, you had no such forewarning or
> knowledge of this.
> Still, RunRev is a VERY small company. They have brilliant programmers and
> Kevin Miller has done an almost perfect job steering the ship through the
> channel already littered with dead xTalk efforts. Perhaps they are now in a
> growth spurt, taking on just a bit more than they can handle-- hurrying to
> play catchup with the huge number of features and APIs the hundreds of
> programmers at Apple, and thousands of programmers at Microsoft and Google,
> not to mention the Andre's, Richmond's, and Gaskin's relentless pursuit of
> feature parity for Red Ubuntu Hat.
> Oh, and the severe competition of multiple other RAD tools out there might
> also factor into some of the catchup going on. I'm not making apologies for
> them, but I do know of a few other products who are faring worse.
> So, add it all up, and it shows LC to be a company who is always changing,
> always pissing someone off, always righting the ship and shipping a new
> build, and-- always listening. Still, it is a company with flaws, just like
> any other. My suggestion: do your homework and you won't be so sorely
> disappointed. There are many here who will steer you correctly.
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
San Francisco Ca. USA
more about sqb <http://www.google.com/profiles/sbarncar>
More information about the Use-livecode