Help! I'm stuck

[Sean Cole (Pi)]

That **would** be good. I see what you mean.


On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 18:36, Brian Milby via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> It would be a separate application, but would still be called from the IDE
> like today.  One difference is that as a separate process it would not
> disrupt the current session inside the IDE.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 8, 2021, at 1:21 PM, Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode <
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > When you say a separate process, do you mean have the standalone builder
> as
> > a separate application from the IDE? Why could it not be accomplished in
> > the IDE where it is more convenient?
> >
> > Handling it within the IDE process was fine as long as the only thing
> >> the Standalone Builder did was bind a copy of the engine to a copy of
> >> the stack file.
> >>
> >
> > Forgive my lack of knowledge, but when we compile it to an application
> for
> > different platforms, what are the differences from one platform build to
> > another, particularly regarding where it is just a stack file bound to
> the
> > engine and the other way(s) not listed here?  I'm genuinely interested.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 17:43, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> >> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Standalone building needs to be moved to a separate process.
> >>
> >> Handling it within the IDE process was fine as long as the only thing
> >> the Standalone Builder did was bind a copy of the engine to a copy of
> >> the stack file.
> >>
> >> But today, building a standalone means deep modifications to the stack
> >> file, and this has resulted in multiple successive layers of knock-on
> >> effects where design complications are needed to compensate for design
> >> complications put in place to compensate for earlier design
> complications.
> >>
> >> The end result of attempting to build standalones within the current IDE
> >> process is not merely cumbersome, but disruptive, confusing, and even
> >> requires CODE CHANGES from EVERY USER to compensate even further just
> >> for the build sequence.
> >>
> >> LC has gone from the simplest way to build apps to something no less
> >> onerous than most, and more confusing than many.
> >>
> >> Standalone building needs to be moved to a separate process.
> >>
> >> With that, LC can begin the return journey back on its path to the
> >> simplest way to build apps.
> >>
> >> --
> >>  Richard Gaskin
> >>  Fourth World Systems
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ralph DiMola wrote:
> >>
> >>> I never built a non-mobile standalone for the first 5 years of using
> >>> LC. For a mobile build nothing gets closed and gets built from the
> >>> stack(s) files on disk. What a surprise I got when I built my first
> >>> desktop standalone. I initially thought that something was very wrong
> >>> with the IDE and restarted.
> >>> After some searches I found that this is the correct behavior??? I
> >>> guess there is a reason for closing the stack(s) but I find it very
> >>> odd indeed.
> >>>
> >>> Ralph DiMola
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>