Web vs Native (was Re: HTML5 limitations?)

[Mark Waddingham]

On 2017-07-28 18:34, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
> A sense of smooth liquid flow is the hallmark of modern UI.  If
> support for this were limited to one widget that requires JavaScript,
> we might as well use the other tools you mentioned above.

This is simply not true. All tools have their limitations, all tools 
have things they are good at and things that they are bad. All tools 
have things they can do, but make it so hard to do so that you can't 
really consider using them for it. In most other endeavours in life we 
don't use a single tool to achieve a goal (to be slightly glib - you can 
only get so far with DIY on your home with JUST a hammer) - so why do we 
absolutely expect this of software development?

Right now JS/HTML5/CSS etc. has the edge over LiveCode in creating these 
rich UIs. Now, to be honest, the acceleratedRendering mode of LiveCode 
(which has been around for years) is no different from the underlying 
tech in browsers which allows such UIs to be done. The problem is that 
is merely the lowest-level piece. No-one (including us) has every 
leveraged it to build a framework like that which we see in the standard 
browser stack - they could, it is perfectly possible - it just has not 
happened. (Admittedly some of the low-level features we are adding to AR 
mode in due course will make this easier but not really something which 
could not be achieved before if you worked hard enough).

So Swami's approach is the pragmatic one. Use the browser for the things 
it is (currently) SUPERIOR for, but use LiveCode for everything else. 
Each tool on its own is good, but when joined together they become 
great.

This is exactly the angle we have taken with LiveCodeForFM. For 20 
years, FileMaker has been focused on making an easy to use tool which 
makes building database apps (particularly focused around solving 
BUSINESS problems); in contrast we have been focused on making an easy 
to use programming language and app building environment. We've tried to 
solve slightly different problems, so what each tool can do intersects a 
good deal, but mostly does not.

Overall: In isolation, either are good. However, when you put them 
together they complement each other very very well and the combination 
becomes great.

> Fortunately it seems some of the work needed for the DG update will
> help with some of this.
> 
> Related, Jacque's request for swipe transitions was well received, but
> oddly its status was changed to "Hibernated":
> http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=20141

That is the standard process for all enhancement requests. They are 
HIBERNATED until we have the time to evaluate and prioritise - if we 
were to do anything else, we would end up never getting any work done - 
and work we are doing right now is, quite frankly, always more important 
that work that we might do in the future.

Also, that particular request really doesn't in anyway explain how it 
might work ( sorry Jacque :( ) or, indeed, what that syntax is meant to 
do - so that one has an extra step before moving forward. Actually 
understanding what it is actually about and, indeed, if it even makes 
sense.

There's a huge chasm (I'm mentioning a lot of those lately) between an 
idea, and an actionable idea, and then a huge chasm again between an 
actionable notion and an implementation. (Btw, chasms generally require 
either money or time to cross - or both - it isn't ever that they cannot 
be crossed).

Whilst it might seem that LiveCode's evolution moves at a glacial pace 
at times; it is important to note that when compared to other 4GL tools 
(one mentioned above is a good one) out there (and indeed other dev 
tools in general) we are actually moving at tachyonic pace. Part of me 
thinks that we should perhaps slow down a bit (even if just a little).

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

-- 
Mark Waddingham ~ mark at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps