Business Application Framework

[Richmond]

On 12/08/15 20:01, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> On 8/12/2015 11:02 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> Why have I got the impression, over about 15 years, that Runtime
>> Revolution looks like a teenage kid with
>> ADS. Every day a new idea, none of which really reach fruition. After a
>> while with a person like this one would
>> start to wonder about their reliability to finish anything at all.
>
> First, they are no longer "Runtime Revolution" or "RunRev", they are 
> "LiveCode" and have legally changed the company name.
>
> Second, your comment is inaccurate and unfair. The last Kickstarter 
> promised HTML5 which is now well underway. Internally there is already 
> an early working version. The first Kickstarter promised to 
> restructure the engine, a massive undertaking, and that has been 
> completed. So both KS campaigns have been honored.
>
> Bringing full unicode support was promised and it, too, was a huge 
> effort that took a year or more to finish. That has been fullfilled 
> and has made life far easier for us all.
>
> Another promise addressed increased flexibility via widgets and all 
> the benefits they will provide. You have already seen the progress 
> they've made and work continues. Some widgets have already been 
> created by both LC and users. When completed, widgets will give us, 
> among other things, native appearance and behavior on mobile devices. 
> There are unlimited other applications.
>
> Regarding the bug database, it was overhauled some years ago and bugs 
> are now addressed almost immediately. They are fixed according to 
> criteria I have mentioned before. If you are referring to ancient, 
> unaddressed bugs, LC requested that users go through those and close 
> any that are no longer relevant. If you haven't done that, you should. 
> They have apparently begun the lengthy process of reviewing the 
> reports from 5 or 10 years ago, since I do see some of those 
> referenced occasionally in the QCC.
>
> Can you name other promises they have left unfullfilled?
>
> I wonder if you are mistaking "unreliable" progress with "not 
> instantaous" progress. The amount of work required to complete some of 
> these promises takes a great deal of time. And, of course, they need 
> to keep the lights on while it all happens.
>

Possibly.

But I am sure I am not the only person who suffers from this "confusion" 
. . . I wonder why?