Open Source Kickstarter Report Card

[Richmond]

On 17/08/15 00:34, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> You're right. It was also it increase the user base, which it did 
> considerably, so that LC would become better known and accepted 
> generally. As you say, the move to open source was also meant to allow 
> others to contribute to the engine so that fixes and new features 
> would be incorporated more quickly. Unfortunately that hasn't been the 
> case; except for a few skilled people (actually I can only think of 
> two offhand) the community has not done much there.

Contributing to the engine requires that LiveCode users have what is 
called 'meta-knowledge', i.e. they understand other programming
languages (specifically C++ as I understand).

NOW, a long time ago, I contributed by making a different toolBar stack 
(which was used by other people), and more recently I made a stack to 
muck around with both the menuBar and the toolBar stacks: while these 
are mainly cosmetic they can help people's work-flow.

The first toolBar stack went the way of all flesh at about version 2.1 
because of a general interface change.

I would love to contribute a lot of stuff that I have stored on a 
variety of hard drivers that I have accumulated over the last 14 years 
or so: of varying utility - if I could find somewhere to store this 
online (at no cost to myself as I have NO money), and where people could 
get at it
because it was properly publicised (perhaps via the LiveCode webpage) I 
would upload all of it is a shot.

OH! Where is the unified IDE that was waved around during the 
Kickstarter thing, and doesn't seem to have come up on the 'Report Card'?

Now, if, coupled with the Open Source release there had been some sort 
of details about how non-specialists could contribute that would
have been a great help.

Also, with the 'NON' nature of revOnline recently, and so on, a library 
of reusable stacks/code snippets that is freely and universally available
has been a bit difficult . . .

Also: the Profit Motive is very strong . . . let's see some incentives, 
however small, and that may drive user contributions up.

After all, at Primary schools kids collect stars . . .

>
> I've contributed a tiny little bit to fix an IDE bug but that's about 
> as far as my own skills go.

I wonder what made the folks at LiveCode think that there were lots of 
'experts' lurking out "there", when most people either
use LiveCode or use another language (such as C++) elsewhere?

Richmond.

>
>
> On 8/16/2015 3:07 PM, Roger Eller wrote:
>> In my opinion, it was to give it a chance to grow, by incorporating 
>> other
>> open tech, and also to just KEEP UP with the ever changing tech world
>> without consuming the inadequate resources of the mother ship.
>> On Aug 16, 2015 2:46 AM, "Terence Heaford" <t.heaford at icloud.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> On 16 Aug 2015, at 07:42, Kay C Lan <lan.kc.macmail at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I thought THE objective of the KickStarter Campaign was to make LC 
>>>> Open
>>>> Source and Free to the Community. Wasn't that achieved? Everything 
>>>> else
>>> was
>>>> just secondary but in support of that goal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you give us your opinion as to why LC was made Open Source?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>