Business Application Framework

[EED-wp Email]

Harrumph! As an Indie license holder, I'm not "serious"? 

Hmm. Bad choice of words, probably. 

I'm glad Richmond is stimulating this discussion. Lots of other good comments in this thread. 

Bill

William Prothero
http://ed.earthednet.org

> On Aug 12, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Richmond <richmondmathewson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Kevin Miller wrote:
> 
> "The Business Application Framework is a framework for writing more serious applications in LiveCode."
> 
> Am I the only one who feels a wee bit insulted?
> 
> OK, OK, I know that I am a very small frog in the relatively large LiveCode pond . . . but I consider my /Devawriter /serious, even if nobody else does.
> 
> Is this statement to be taken to imply that only applications built for business are to be taken seriously?
> 
> Now a very large number of people who contribute [Hey, there's a word which might well be shouted around a bit; 'contribute' along with
> 'community'] to the Use-List and the Forums are involved in far more serious programming exercises than I am, if by
> 'serious' we mean programs that go in for really 'heavy lifting' - I wonder?
> 
> "If you want features for free then you can make them, or look to see if they are part of our extensive crowd-funded road map
> and thus either being provided or coming shortly. If you want us to provide things outside of that then yes,
> it costs money for us to make them."
> 
> Well, I am sure "it costs money for us to make them", but then, I don't live in Britain any longer and am out of the loop where everybody talks to everybody as if they are blithering idiots (saw a load more of this in England 2 weeks ago: hence this being written on the back of
> a jar of peanut butter: "May contain nuts").
> 
> Now how are we simple folk to tell what are 'features' (i.e stuff that is to be "bolted on"), and what are just standard parts of LiveCode?
> 
> As far as I understood all the hype surrounding the Open Source drive for the Kickstarter the whole idea was that we would put money into a pot,
> and then both that and any subsequent contributions, whether money, code snippets, or 'features' we authored would be rolled into
> LiveCode for the common good of 'the community'.
> 
> "coming shortly" . . . um, Ms Gay . . . so NOT all of the items on the road map are ready yet; no need to look at the roadmap - Kevin has told us.
> 
> "Options like this framework, together with things like the technical support options,
> might be a big help in getting additional value and productivity advantages from the platform."
> 
> "additional value" and "productivity advantages" are just ad-man-speak: we can all walk the walk and talk the talk if we need to, but those phrases
> are ethereal and almost semantically empty. What the heck is a "productivity advantage" when it is at home? Do you mean things will move more quickly, be easier to program??? Well, if so, say so.
> 
> "might": first rule of reading stuff: never trust a modal verb.
> 
> "for now, they are aimed carefully at the needs of our more serious business customers."
> 
> Aha . . . so, presumably, LiveCode (the company formerly known as RunRev) held an open, and above board consultation session that was
> properly documented with its/their "more serious" business customers???
> 
> Where does that leave the other business customers? The ones that, by implication, LiveCode considers foolish and lacking in the level
> of seriousness to warrant consultation.
> 
> VCS has already been pointed out by Richard Gaskin . . .
> 
> "out there" . . . why do I feel that somebody somewhere is being played for a fool?
> 
> That fool is not me; I'm already the unofficial LiveCode court jester, and I am doing my "happy dance" here with my stick with a pig's bladder
> on the end of it.
> 
> Oh, and I real wonder how "serious business customers" are going to seriously consider a message that uses such an infantile phrase
> as a "happy dance" in it?
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> However, I do realise that there are several things quite seriously wrong with me:
> 
> 1. Every time condescending, arrogant puff comes out of the mothership I am incapable of keeping my mouth shut.
> 
> 2. I am, as Andrew Kluth mentioned just now, a "fanboy" insofar as I think LiveCode is just about the best programming/coding IDE/RAD? whateveryoucallit there is, and it is a fantastic tool to introduce programming to children.
> 
> 3. I don't have 25 million pounds so I can buy out LiveCode and boss them around instead.
> 
> 4. I think LiveCode have seriously [hey, there's that word again] lost the plot in several important ways.
> 
> Richmond.
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode