mark at livecode.com
Fri May 19 09:32:10 CEST 2017
On 2017-05-18 22:08, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
> On 05/18/2017 10:57 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
> Yes, but that's comparing two different things. I'm concerned about
> the differing binary formats, not the source compatibility. I'm stuck
> if I want to distribute an easy-to-use extension (widget or library)
> for others to use. My alternative is to distribute the source and say
> "here you go... compile and install it yourself. And remember to do
> that again when the next major version of LC comes out or it won't
> work any more."
I was more just trying to explain the current situation, for both
source and binary compatibility.
> I *don't* think we're doing badly in the realm of source-code
> compatibility. I never intended to imply that. Sorry if I gave that
I was talking about the LCB ecosystem generally in comparison to
Rust / Swift / number of engineers they have working on those projects /
time it took them to get them to a release worthy state :)
> To be fair about your comparisons, Rust only reached 1.0.0 stage two
> years ago. My statement there was more about that fact that given all
> the hoopla that accompanied the announcement of LCB, extensions, and
> the Way Forward, the state of the resources and environment for
> extension development seems pretty fragile at this point.
Indeed - we did - why wouldn't we? People wouldn't even have looked at
them if they didn't and if this stuff is never used it will never
reach any sort of maturity (the reality is that programming languages
through direct use, rather than by design-in-totality-then-implement).
Just like many other open-source projects - most of which start off
'fragile' in the way you suggest.
Mark Waddingham ~ mark at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps
More information about the use-livecode