Writing Extensions

Mark Waddingham mark at livecode.com
Wed May 17 15:59:07 EDT 2017

On 2017-05-17 21:34, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote:
> Why do I feel that the reason for all this "wierdness" is because LCB
> has been written from C++ programmers from the ground up,
> while LiveCode still (well, just about) hangs onto to its HyperCard 
> heritage.
> LiveCode, at its best, preserves the clarity that was the best thing
> about HyperCard (certainly mind-blowingly refreshing
> after my baptism with FORTRAN and PASCAL); LCB, not doing that, is as
> opaque as its heritage.
> It has been suggested before that the LiveCode team have, maybe
> unwittingly, started moving away from the
> HyperCard-like simplicity that was what made LiveCode so obviously the
> best successor to HyperCard; with LCB they
> don't even have to pay lip service to that . . .

I think this perhaps displays a misunderstanding what LCB is for - it 
isn't a replacement for LiveCode Script; it is intended to be a stepping 
stone between C++ and LiveCode Script which means it can be used to 
extend the engine in way which LiveCode Script cannot. i.e. Allowing 
functionality to be added to LiveCode *without* having to deal with C++ 
and, instead, deal with something slightly more familiar (also there is 
a lot of boiler-plate required in writing engine functionality in C++, 
which LCB eliminates by raising the abstraction level of values).

Warmest Regards,


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

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list