Mobile Wondering <was Maximum field height?>

Alex Tweedly alex at tweedly.net
Mon Apr 6 11:12:35 EDT 2020


On 06/04/2020 03:55, scott--- via use-livecode wrote:
>> 1. xTalk features just don't work, or work totally inadequately (e.g. scrolling fields).
> I feel this is overly harsh. Livecode fields (and the creation of native UIText fields) do work on mobile. I think the issue is that the use of some objects (like fields) on mobile is not as drag ’n' drop simple as it is on desktop. No argument there.

Yes, it was harsh - but sometimes a little bit of hyperbole helps, if 
only the mood of the speaker :-)

And, thinking about your and Jacque's responses, maybe my experience is 
a bit out of date; I should try again.

But, afaik, it's not just scrolling fields; aren't there also issues 
with keyboard input requiring you to scroll / move the field to remain 
visible, or
>   And the fact that mobile-specific commands each need to be wrapped inside an environment-check to keep from throwing an error in the IDE.

Yes, that's the kind of thing I meant in my item (2) "equivalence".

Many of the mobileXXX function have no desktop equivalent - but could 
still be better named, and provide some empty response to ease 
development on the desktop.

But others are actually useful features - and I see no reason why LC 
shouldn't implement those as widgets for desktop (where feasible). Why 
not have a mobilePick that works on desktop ?  Or "pickDate", or 
"pickContact" ? Or mobileCompose???mail ?

That way we'd be maintaining "platform equivalence" - and maybe even 
giving desktop developers features that make LC an even better choice.

>
>> 3. It's not "Live"Code. Developing for Mobile gets you back into the horrible edit - compile (i.e. build a standalone) - test cycle.
> I agree that there is much more of this needed for mobile since the IDE doesn’t allow us to build directly on mobile (I’m not sure that is a bad thing.) I have found simulators to be a good intermediary but it absolutely does require this frequent build cycle for some aspects of development.
I found simulators completely useless. Though that may be because it was 
a few years ago. And even then, you have the clumsiness of wiating for a 
build/download/test cycle.
>> 4. You still need to deal with the ugly issues of the SDKs and the app-store  requirements.
> I suspect that jumping the security hoops like certificates and store portals are a big reasons why even if "everyone can code” not everyone can see their mobile creation made available to others. Learning how to navigate these added security restrictions is time consuming and confusing (at least to me). Several people like Trevore DeVore and Matthias Rebbe have been helping ease these complications for desktop. I’m not sure what the answer is for mobile, though.

I should have made those two separate points.

4A. SDKs and the build environment. Just horrible; when I tried this a few years ago (for Android) it took me days of frustration and guesswork to get a working SDK, and get it connected to LC, and to try to get a simulator to work properly. Including choosing (I think it "device type") from a long drop-down list of devices I didn't own. I picked at random - and was told either that it was "unavailable" or "will be slow - suggest you try a different device". Well - they were right about that - the simulator was S...L...O...W.
I never did get round to trying for IOS, because everyone said how much harder it was than Android :-)

4B. App store issues. Never got that far - though it sounds like it's pretty annoying.
Build for a few people (and sidestep the store) - seems to be possible, but not clear how easy it is.

Thanks for the reply - it has stiffened my resolve to have another go !!

-- Alex.




More information about the use-livecode mailing list