J. Landman Gay
jacque at hyperactivesw.com
Wed Jan 4 19:01:17 CET 2017
LC could definitely be extended to do anything. But the team has limited
resources and chooses new features carefully depending on a number of
factors, and one person's need may not be enough to justify the work. In
the spirit of OSS, we now have a way to implement those extensions ourselves.
It is more freedom, not less.
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On January 4, 2017 2:16:56 AM Richmond Mathewson
<richmondmathewson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for a very clear explanation which improved the taste of my
> breakfast no end.
> Although . . . it still doesn't quite explain why we need LCB to do some
> "heavy lifting": why can LC
> not be extended to encompass that?
> On 1/3/17 11:40 pm, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>> On 1/3/17 1:54 PM, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
>>> I wonder how many programmers are going to spend their money on LiveCode
>>> if they are aware that at a certain point they are going to have to
>>> leverage one or more other programming languages to achieve
>>> certain things.
>> No one needs to learn any other language. Since the LC team
>> understands that most users don't want to learn lower-level languages
>> like C++, they've provided an intermediate language -- LCB -- that
>> meets the requirement halfway. For those who know or don't mind
>> learning C or its variants, they can tap directly into OS frameworks
>> to achieve even more.
>> None of this means that you yourself need to actually write those
>> things, or that the capabilities of LC have somehow diminished. It
>> isn't any different than writing externals, which have been around
>> forever and which we use with abandon without understanding a single
>> line of the underlying code.
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode