Future of LC?

Want to talk about something that isn't covered by another category?

Moderators: heatherlaine, Klaus, FourthWorld, robinmiller, kevinmiller

ClipArtGuy
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:29 pm

Re: Future of LC?

Post by ClipArtGuy » Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:41 pm

FourthWorld wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:52 pm
"disingenuous" is just another word for "lying". How do they respond to you when you address them directly like that? What benefit do you imagine could come from such rude presumption?
I love Livecode, but let's be real. In the original kickstarter, they promised:
We will introduce a new visual editor designed around today’s usability standards. The editor will be open. The more technical members of our community can create simplified versions of the editor for tablets or primary schools.

Here is a screenshot of the prototype:
117dbdeb72106130b0c233e454653d14_original.png
This seems to have been vaporware designed to entice would be supporters.

They also fully funded the 2D physics stretch goal, and 5 years later, neither of these promises have materialized, and have completely dropped off the roadmap.

No, I haven't contacted them about this, nor should I have to. They collected money for specific features, and then summarily dropped them without so much as a blog post. If that doesn't qualify as disingenuous, I don't know what does.

Like I said, I love LC and will continue to use and to recommend it when relevant, but I have learned to take their promises with an extra large grain of salt.

richmond62
Livecode Opensource Backer
Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Future of LC?

Post by richmond62 » Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:12 pm

"Disingenuous" is not always as strong as lying: it can mean simply leaving out certain bits of information.

bogs
Posts: 2279
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 10:45 pm

Re: Future of LC?

Post by bogs » Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:44 pm

ClipArtGuy wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:32 pm
It takes some time to have that "aha moment" with LiveCode, especially coming from another language.
from Miriam Webster:
Definition of aha moment
: a moment of sudden realization, inspiration, insight, recognition, or comprehension
Yah, I get one of those moments about every 3 or so months... In fact, I feel one coming on no.........
AHA!!

*Edit - I should add that I find that editor to be far more interesting than what actually showed up in 8 & 9.x. I wonder what ever happened to it :| Thanks for the picture, it sure looks interesting.
Image

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 6173
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Future of LC?

Post by FourthWorld » Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:52 am

ClipArtGuy wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:41 pm
FourthWorld wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 7:52 pm
"disingenuous" is just another word for "lying". How do they respond to you when you address them directly like that? What benefit do you imagine could come from such rude presumption?
I love Livecode, but let's be real. In the original kickstarter, they promised:
We will introduce a new visual editor designed around today’s usability standards. The editor will be open. The more technical members of our community can create simplified versions of the editor for tablets or primary schools.

Here is a screenshot of the prototype:
117dbdeb72106130b0c233e454653d14_original.png

This seems to have been vaporware designed to entice would be supporters.

They also fully funded the 2D physics stretch goal, and 5 years later, neither of these promises have materialized, and have completely dropped off the roadmap.

No, I haven't contacted them about this, nor should I have to. They collected money for specific features, and then summarily dropped them without so much as a blog post. If that doesn't qualify as disingenuous, I don't know what does.

Like I said, I love LC and will continue to use and to recommend it when relevant, but I have learned to take their promises with an extra large grain of salt.
Richmond's question was about open source. When that was answered, you changed the subject to the UI.

The UI has been discussed in these forums, and IIRC in the blog. More than a few times.

If I take the time to dig up the last word on this from LC, will I need to also bookmark for the next several times it comes up, or could we consider that done?

But back on topic to the point Richmond was discussing that I replied to, is there any part of the new IDE that is not open source?

One of the key draws in the quote you selected is the ability for the community to fork the IDE code to create an EDU-focused IDE. Has anyone been prevented from doing that?

Bonus question: Has any complex UI from any company ever had a final deliverable that matched early-stage sketches?

(Trick question, since of course if it did nothing was learned during the development process.)
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 6173
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Future of LC?

Post by FourthWorld » Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:11 am

richmond62 wrote:
Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:12 pm
"Disingenuous" is not always as strong as lying: it can mean simply leaving out certain bits of information.
"Disingenuous" implies willful distortion of the truth. Whether strong or weak, your choice to assert willful dishonesty is not only inappropriate, but so much so that I trust you would not choose that word when talking with them in person.

If you meant to write "inaccurate at estimating" you could have typed that. You can even go back and edit that if you like, and I would gladly remove my response to the original choice.

Kevin's already said many times that they underestimated the cost involved in full vision of what they were attempting. And, like some 80% of case studies outlined in ACM literature spanning 40 years which were also over-budget, when it's a question of adjusting scope or going out of business they made the best move for their customer base.

All these years later, LiveCode is still here. Not even the great and mighty Apple could figure out how to hit break-even with the single-platform HyperCard. What LiveCode Ltd has achieved, warts and all, is beyond what most other companies even attempt, and few have survived. With LC, they're growing, and moving the platform forward on all supported OSes. Far from perfect, but quite capable enough for thousands to build profitable businesses around.

They don't get everything right, but when they miss it's not because of willful dishonesty. When you manage a million-line code base writing to native APIs on five OSes I would gladly take your advice on how to hit your cost estimates every time.
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

ClipArtGuy
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:29 pm

Re: Future of LC?

Post by ClipArtGuy » Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:18 am

FourthWorld wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:52 am

Bonus question: Has any complex UI from any company ever had a final deliverable that matched early-stage sketches?

(Trick question, since of course if it did nothing was learned during the development process.)
The basic IDE UI paradigm is pretty much the same in the newer versions as the old. The "new visual editor" promised never materialized at all, nor did the 2D physics engine that was fully funded over 5 years ago....

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 6173
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Future of LC?

Post by FourthWorld » Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:46 am

ClipArtGuy wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:18 am
FourthWorld wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:52 am

Bonus question: Has any complex UI from any company ever had a final deliverable that matched early-stage sketches?

(Trick question, since of course if it did nothing was learned during the development process.)
The basic IDE UI paradigm is pretty much the same in the newer versions as the old. The "new visual editor" promised never materialized at all
The sketch initially proposed would not be optimal in use. Much has been written about it; I'd write it again but I need to get to dinner soon. The short form is that it's great in tools where there is an immutable line between design and runtime, but we choose xTalks because that line doesn't exist at all. A layout mode that embeds the contents of a window in a pane prevents us from working on the actual window. See also: SuperEdit.

LC's UI has in fact undergone significant change. On the more superficial level, the UI treatments have been flattened and modernized. More deeply, the tools palette has been completely rewritten to support widgets, widgets were implemented, the Project Browser replaced the Application Browser to provide quick access to behaviors and more, the Inspector has been completely rewritten so that it now supports literally infinite dynamic property pickers for widgets and also requires less effort to move from pane to pane, the Standalone Builder has been deeply overhauled, the Script Editor has customizable auto-complete and a good many other new enhancements, the various Help modules have begun to be centralized...and that's just the newer stuff.

For a more complete listing of the investments made after the Kickstarter funding, please see this blog post written to address questions such as yours:
https://livecode.com/trevor-devore-inte ... -livecode/

nor did the 2D physics engine that was fully funded over 5 years ago....
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31657&start=15#p172437
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

ClipArtGuy
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:29 pm

Re: Future of LC?

Post by ClipArtGuy » Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:07 am

FourthWorld wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:46 am

The sketch initially proposed would not be optimal in use. Much has been written about it; I'd write it again but I need to get to dinner soon. The short form is that it's great in tools where there is an immutable line between design and runtime, but we choose xTalks because that line doesn't exist at all. A layout mode that embeds the contents of a window in a pane prevents us from working on the actual window.
Then I don't understand why they would even tease such a thing. Having been the ones already building the software for a couple decades, surely this would have been obvious to them?

Your last link just redirects to your previous comment, which as far as I can tell doesn't address the issue of the (fully funded stretch goal) 2D physics engine being dropped from the roadmap without a peep.
I'm not here to argue, or trash LC. In fact, I love LiveCode and recommend it fairly often, but I still think both of my criticisms in this thread are valid.

richmond62
Livecode Opensource Backer
Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:17 am
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Future of LC?

Post by richmond62 » Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:47 am

I'm not here to argue, or trash LC. In fact, I love LiveCode and recommend it fairly often, but I still think both of my criticisms in this thread are valid.
The "only" problem is that any time one levels even a slight criticism against LiveCode, however well-intentioned it is, umbrage is taken.

The end result of this is that people will stop giving this kind of feedback and those problems will continue.

This argues a certain level of immaturity at the top.

dunbarx
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 5569
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Future of LC?

Post by dunbarx » Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:24 pm

One point Richmond makes is valid. I shy away whenever I see "free trials" because after a time these often (and automatically) become items that are charged unless I explicitly cancel them.

I rarely remember to.

Probably better to simply explain and promote the OSS and leave it at that.

Craig

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 6173
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Future of LC?

Post by FourthWorld » Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:31 pm

ClipArtGuy wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:07 am
FourthWorld wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:46 am

The sketch initially proposed would not be optimal in use. Much has been written about it; I'd write it again but I need to get to dinner soon. The short form is that it's great in tools where there is an immutable line between design and runtime, but we choose xTalks because that line doesn't exist at all. A layout mode that embeds the contents of a window in a pane prevents us from working on the actual window.
Then I don't understand why they would even tease such a thing. Having been the ones already building the software for a couple decades, surely this would have been obvious to them?
Was it obvious to you before you read that?

One of the best things about being human is our ability to learn. I know of few things that finish in the form they were started. Along the way we learn, refine, rethink.
Your last link just redirects to your previous comment, which as far as I can tell doesn't address the issue of the (fully funded stretch goal) 2D physics engine being dropped from the roadmap without a peep.
I'm not here to argue, or trash LC. In fact, I love LiveCode and recommend it fairly often, but I still think both of my criticisms in this thread are valid.
So often in life we're tempted to make exclamations, when what we actually have are questions. The link I provided attempts to distinguish between the two. Assuming closes the opportunity to learn; asking questions is the first necessary step toward understanding. Oddly, there is a lack of understanding evident in this thread, but surprisingly few questions.

So if we assume earnestness among at least most of the participants here, we can anticipate that eventually this thread would inevitably come around to a question: "Why do we not have the 2D physics engine?"

Anticipating that question, I provided the answer: cost. As we see with some 80% of large-scale software projects, they underestimated. Unfortunate, but it happens. Most of the time, with most products in most companies. It's super-cool when it can be avoided. And rare. Software estimation is a complex task that no one has fully mastered.

For a more complete understanding of costs and tasks, the link to the interview Trevor conducted with Kevin and Mark is well worth reading. Indeed, it anticipates discussions like this one, and provides a fair assessment of the details. Years ago. Unread.

I'm also not entirely certain they've completely abandoned the 2D physics engine. IIRC it was always predicated on the completion of FFI in LCB, which was finally brought to a reasonably satisfying level of completeness in v9 with Android/Java support. Exactly when or even if they plan to get back to that is hard to say. I have a project facing two critical issues of a much more mundane nature, as do others. Managing a code base beyond what most companies even attempt is a non-trivial task, requiring levels of both discipline and patience beyond what we commonly see.

The next question would logically seem to be: "Is the 2D physics engine still on the table?"

It would seem most productive to address the question to the people who can answer it.
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

ClipArtGuy
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:29 pm

Re: Future of LC?

Post by ClipArtGuy » Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:53 pm

FourthWorld wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:31 pm

The next question would logically seem to be: "Is the 2D physics engine still on the table?"

It would seem most productive to address the question to the people who can answer it.
I fully understand that the undertaking was far more expensive and difficult than first estimated. As you've pointed out, that is fairly common. I am quite happy with what we have now, BUT the fact remains that they collected money SPECIFICALLY for this feature, and then summarily dropped it from the roadmap with no explanation. It goes back to what Richmond was saying in the infinite LiveCode thread
richmond62 wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:34 am
if you undertake to clean out the byre because its full of skitter from last winter, and later I come out to look and find you building a greenhouse to grow tomatoes instead, it really doesn't matter how hard you have been working: I'll still rip your doo-dahs off and feed them to the rottweiler.

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 6173
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Future of LC?

Post by FourthWorld » Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:22 pm

richmond62 wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:47 am
I'm not here to argue, or trash LC. In fact, I love LiveCode and recommend it fairly often, but I still think both of my criticisms in this thread are valid.
The "only" problem is that any time one levels even a slight criticism against LiveCode, however well-intentioned it is, umbrage is taken.
Your attempt to conflate two different things is self-evident. ClipArtGuy did not mislabel a cost estimation issue as a form of willful dishonesty. Accordingly, nothing in my reply to him addressed that, because he made better choices in which such unfair accusations were absent.

If you're uncomfortable with having your choice of words called out for what it is, make different choices. That's something only you can do. You can own your words, you even have the freedom here to revise your words, but you cannot expect others to be responsible for your words.

Consider asking questions when questions are what you have, and so many communications will become simple and productive.
The end result of this is that people will stop giving this kind of feedback and those problems will continue.
In this thread, "those problems" are related to cost estimation. Industry-wide, a non-trivial problem, one even Steven McConnell can only assist with but not completely solve. No one here has offered any guidance on improving software estimation process.

Your sentence also represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes actionable feedback in the LiveCode community. I've addressed this before, and like most of what I write here it was ignored or forgotten. So rather than presume this is the one day something I write will matter to you, I'll instead merely reiterate it for the benefit of newcomers who may stumble across this thread:

These forums are provided for user-to-user support among members of the community learning to master LiveCode. While members of the core dev team do occasionally show up here as time permits, most of their time is spent developing LiveCode, so their participation here is relatively rare compared to other community members who volunteer significant time to help others. If you have a question other community members can answer about using LiveCode to develop applications, you're in one of the best places on the planet for that.

If you encounter technical or design issues, or have suggestions for enhancing the LiveCode product, you can submit those directly to the team in the database established for that:
https://quality.livecode.com/

If you have the time, skills, and interest to resolve issues directly in the product, you are encouraged to participate in the product development at the Github repository where the code base is managed:
https://github.com/livecode

If you have suggestions for specific improvements to LiveCode's business operations, you can submit those directly to the company for forwarding to the appropriate personnel here:
support AT livecode.com

These forums also provide "Off Topic" and other sections for general discussion. Moderation in these forums is unusually light compared to nearly any other large open source projects, and members almost never have any comments edited or deleted. So if you just want to blow off some steam without expecting anything consequential to come of it, sharing with the other members in the appropriate sections can accomplish that.

If you want to participate in shaping the direction of the LiveCode product or the company, the methods outlined above for reaching them directly will be your best options.

This argues a certain level of immaturity at the top.
::sigh:: I cannot understand how such a line can originate in a mind as intelligent as yours. First, it's a non-sequitur. Second, no one from whatever you mean by "the top" is even participating in this thread, so to judge non-participants by your reaction to participants is illogical, and therefore unfair.
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

FourthWorld
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
VIP Livecode Opensource Backer
Posts: 6173
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 7:05 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Future of LC?

Post by FourthWorld » Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:28 pm

ClipArtGuy wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:53 pm
FourthWorld wrote:
Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:31 pm

The next question would logically seem to be: "Is the 2D physics engine still on the table?"

It would seem most productive to address the question to the people who can answer it.
I fully understand that the undertaking was far more expensive and difficult than first estimated. As you've pointed out, that is fairly common. I am quite happy with what we have now, BUT the fact remains that they collected money SPECIFICALLY for this feature, and then summarily dropped it from the roadmap with no explanation.
The interview I linked to is worth reading.

If it helps, please remember that I am neither retired nor being paid to participate here. I would not waste your time or mine looking up links and including them in something here if I didn't feel was useful. I have too much respect for you, and too little available time to spend on anything less than earnestness.

As for that one of the many features outlined in the Kickstarter campaign of 2013, it would seem most productive to address the question to the people who can answer it.
Richard Gaskin
Community volunteer LiveCode Community Liaison

LiveCode development, training, and consulting services: Fourth World Systems: http://FourthWorld.com
LiveCode User Group on Facebook : http://FaceBook.com/groups/LiveCodeUsers/

capellan
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Future of LC?

Post by capellan » Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:16 pm

The future of LC depends completely of how useful
programmers perceive it is.

I am 100% sure that Livecode Ltd. is choosing first all
features that are more useful for it's developers.

For example, if database connection features are
requested more frequently... then, we are going
to receive more database connection related
features (although some of us will never use them)

Just for curiosity, Could someone provide a detailed
explanation of how we could use a 2D physics engine
within Livecode?

Al

Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”