Announcing Xavvi, a Great Leap Forward for App Building

[stam]

A small note to stam: it seems to me that you keep looking at the finger while pointing to the moon and I found the personal attack on "informed opinion" a bit over the top. That one has doubts about LiveCode's new line I think is something human, for me LiveCode is not a religion.

I see... so disagreeing with you is a personal attack. Okies...

1. You are clearly commenting on how 'AI' will replace the developer.
None of us have used the product per se, but having seen what is demonstrated in the numerous videos provided, it will not be churning out apps without very significant input from the developer. From what I saw, this is best seen as an accelerator, not a replacement for a developer. Which is what I contradicted you on.

2. You have been waxing lyrical about how LiveCode is doing the wrong thing. My counterpoint was that this seems is an evolution that LC deemed necessary to take to stay alive and competitive. They know their business. Howling at the moon isn't going to pay the bills sadly.

As far as I'm concerned I don't have the money for anything, so not even for Xavvi

One cursory look at Xavvi's site shows that there is a free tier. You don't have money for a free product? (OK yes it's more limited and no AI features, but it is usable).

Hence my comments about an informed opinion.
But whatever...

[richmond62]

there is a free tier

[richmond62]

there is a free tier

It would be useful to know if the free tier will require the user to have a registered version of LiveCode installed on their machine.

[mwieder]

I'm spending the day at the Blockly summit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiIEgob ... eTechTalks
and just got turned onto MIT's Aptly (a work in progress).

Interesting video
https://appinventor.mit.edu/blogs/hal/2022/03/21/Aptly

[stam]

there is a free tier

It would be useful to know if the free tier will require the user to have a registered version of LiveCode installed on their machine.

At this point, who knows for sure… however: Xavvi is a web only product with low-code/no-code building blocks.
My understanding is that to use this on desktop within LC you’ll need an LC licence.
But equally you probably don’t if just using the web product only and I suspect free means free, but with limitations... Of course I also suspect the free version will not have as many features as the paid product (connectors to online services and so on).

But until we see the end product it’s mostly speculation I guess! Just going on the info on the Xavvi site and the recordings of the webinars….

[richmond62]

I believe that LiveCode could do a lot re raking in new paying customers by making the free tier not dependent on having a licensed install of LC on one's machine, but whacking the end-user with a socking great slew of propaganda saying, "This just a small subset of what you will get if you use Xavvi in conjunction with a licensed version of LC."

After all, I can see no-one, but no-one forking out the licence fee for LC simply to test out Xavvi.

[stam]

I believe that LiveCode could do a lot re raking in new paying customers by making the free tier not dependent on having a licensed install of LC on one's machine, but whacking the end-user with a socking great slew of propaganda saying, "This just a small subset of what you will get if you use Xavvi in conjunction with a licensed version of LC."

After all, I can see no-one, but no-one forking out the licence fee for LC simply to test out Xavvi.

Not sure how you drew the conclusion that you need to have an LC licence to use the free tier of Xavvi. From what I can tell you don’t - unless you want to export the project from the web IDE to desktop.

However for basic use - which admittedly seems very limited with 1 app/3 screens, there is no such stipulation.

At least this is what I get from going to https://livecode.com/xavvi/
and clicking on the “Pricing” link. Do you read something different from this?

[richmond62]

No, I don't.

But I don't quite understand, if one uses Xavvi to generate some LiveCode code [Ouch!], how one gets from that to either
LiveCode qua LiveCode, or to work in some other way without a version of LiveCode being present.

AND, as Xavvi, in any form whatsoever, is not available yet . . .

[FourthWorld]

But I don't quite understand, if one uses Xavvi to generate some LiveCode code [Ouch!], how one gets from that to either
LiveCode qua LiveCode, or to work in some other way without a version of LiveCode being present.

Those who want both products will need to license both products.

Each aims to be complete enough that round-tripping between them should be a rare desire.

[richmond62]

Each aims to be complete enough that round-tripping between them should be a rare desire.

Thank you for that.

I suspect that at least one other, vociferous, contributor to this thread was unaware of that.

[jacque]

According to the info in the online conference, we will be able to download the stacks from Xavvi and open them in the (licensed) LC IDE. Later Xavvi will be integrated into the desktop product.

It's worthwhile to watch the videos.

[Simon Knight]

Hmmmmmm,

I'm late to this party but wonder if Xavvi will improve on the quality of rotated graphics of Livecode or will be capable of producing complicated routines e.g. "write a plugin to read and write data stored in the application Apple Calendar and don't forget to include all that is necessary to navigate Apple's security features".

best wishes

S

[stam]

...will be capable of producing complicated routines e.g. "write a plugin to read and write data stored in the application Apple Calendar and don't forget to include all that is necessary to navigate Apple's security features".

Again just gleaning from the data on the site, I would say probably not. They advertise many 'connectors to popular APIs' that will be made available on release; and it if was just a matter asking AI to do this, that wouldn't be a selling point. But who knows?
But even if not, it seems likely this will become a marketplace and perhaps one would be able to purchase such functionality...

S.

[Simon Knight]

"I would say probably not"

I agree which sort of begs the questions : where is the I in AI and what exactly is it for?

In the demonstration the AI produces a table of Doctors, I'm curious that it also included a field for specialisation that I don't think it was asked for. If thats the case why did it stop there, for example why not include membership of professional bodies, place of work, date of birth etc etc? It strikes me that the input text could soon get quite complex and therefore open to misinterpretation by both the AI engine and other readers.

I hope that Livecode do well but I'm not sure if Xavvi will be different from any of the earlier life savers.

best wishes

S

[richmond62]

life savers

Jolly glad my 'life' [i.e. source of income to shove food in the fridge, and so on] does NOT depend on any sort of Artificial "Intelligence":

because, which ever way one chooses to cut things; margarine is margarine, and butter is butter: and as long as the distinction is clear
we are safe, but . . .
-

notButter.jpg (9.97 KiB) Viewed 41366 times

-
there might be a slippery slope [probably greased with margarine].

Whether what I do in my EFL school may be described as 'intelligent' or not is an entertaining, and ultimately pointless question, as, oddly enough, the children after 8-10 years of good, old-fashioned slog, learn that awful, colonial language called 'English' [don't get me wrong; my country has had to cope with 350 years of the 'English' and forced 'Anglification' (as Robert Burns so accurately put it)], and just exactly THAT is what parents pay me for.

Ultimately, when push come to shove, there seem to be 2 possibilities in our world:

1. The dictatorship of the proletariat. WOKE, PC, dumbing down.

2. The dictatorship of the market.

Of course, if one pauses while taking a few puffs of the pipe of reality, one realises that the 2 are inter-related.

HOWEVER: I remember, at an Experimental Primary School, almost inevitably in England [pace my parents being economic migrants from Scotland] being told that in 2000 [remember 2000; about 23 odd years syne?] ALL children would be taught by robots [i.e. AI]:
-

-
Which, with the wisdom of hindsight [ didn't have much foresight in 1972, when I was 10 years old ], is a load of old cobblers.

BECAUSE: and I don't know why I need to state this, except that the unthinking proletariat need to have this rammed down their moronic throats:

Humans are NOT computers.

Computers are NOT human.

AND, while computers, used wisely [i.e. instead of being used obsessively and uncritically] can enhance our lives; they CANNOT replicate human qualities.