Maximum field height?

[Alex Tweedly]

As I see it, there are 4 broad areas of problem for LC on mobile OSes.

The first two have been well described earlier in the thread and should 
just be fixed.

1. xTalk features just don't work, or work totally inadequately (e.g. 
scrolling fields).

2. Failure in cross-platform equivalence.

The other two are, I suspect, not truly solvable.

3. It's not "Live"Code. Developing for Mobile gets you back into the 
horrible edit - compile (i.e. build a standalone) - test cycle.

4. You still need to deal with the ugly issues of the SDKs and the 
app-store  requirements.

So, for me personally, even if LC Ltd. could fix (1) and (2), I would 
still not even bother trying to build a mobile app; it's just not worth 
the hassle or the learning curve.

OK - that's an easy decision for me - I don't do this for a living, I do 
it for fun. And right now Mobile development is no fun.

The downside is, I've all but run out of reasons to develop in LC. I 
used to write little (but useful) apps/games/utilities for myself, or my 
family, or sometimes for friends. I don't think my wife's laptop has 
been switched on this year - she uses her tablet and/or phone almost 
exclusively. And others in the family are much the same.

So I think the right solution is for LC Ltd is to add *another* target 
platform - PWAs. (This has the advantage that it also tackles the 
inadequacy of the HTML platform).

LC Ltd should just pick a set of PWA components (I don't know which - 
maybe Angular, Polymer, etc. I *really* don't know which - but just pick 
one for me !!). Then they should identify a *subset* of LC script/UI 
features that can be readily mapped to JS and a LC/JS library, and 
implement that.

Given the ability to re-load JS it should be feasible to be (fairly) 
"Live"Code, without a full stand-alone build step.  It should produce 
fast-loading, small "apps" that would allow many fairly straightforward 
apps to be developed easily - bringing Mobile development back into the 
realm where new / naive users (that includes me) can readily develop 
apps and run them on the devices we all use these days.

And I'd get to stick to LC :-)

Alex.

On 05/04/2020 21:53, Curry Kenworthy via use-livecode wrote:
>
> Agreed!!! I had grown weary of endless arguments previously pushing 
> back against most LC critiques while the wagons were circled, so very 
> glad to see this frankly discussed now.
>
> "Live" Code. Meaning: WYSIWYG between dev and runtime, no 
> edit-compile-run cycle, much more efficient. Remember the marketing? 
> For us the Users, it wasn't just marketing. It was real, and it was 
> the reason and the empowerment. We lived it and used it. Still do on 
> desktop.
>
> But LC has never been "Live" Code on mobile platforms. A big fail. Not 
> just the UI, but also the mobileBlahBlah keywords that must be placed 
> in if/then branches to avoid runtime errors on desktop whereas they 
> should have been designed pan-platform. When these first appeared I 
> was hoping they were temporary. Instead they've grown and multiplied, 
> setting an arguably bad trend for the future.
>
> That was a huge design flaw or design mistake/bad decision for a 
> product called "Live" Code. LC Ltd needs to understand and embrace 
> some key characteristics of its own product. It's not just marketing, 
> and it's not a HyperCard "Boomer" fad that will (or should) die out 
> demographically with younger coders. It's valid, there's a reason, and 
> it's so important.
>
> How's that for a "second"? :)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Curry Kenworthy
>
> Custom Software Development
> "Better Methods, Better Results"
> LiveCode Training and Consulting
> http://livecodeconsulting.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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