Why is LiveCode not recognized more as an app developer language?

[stam]

One advantage to things made with the LC technology is that LC has no built-in database, instead letting the developer use any of the most popular DB engines in the world, with all of the documentation, support resources, and tooling that have made them the world leaders.

erm... my comment had nothing to do with what backend is used, in case that wasn't clear. I was commenting on ease of use of designing database for the app and integrating it, for which there are exactly zero tools in LC, other that what is afforded by each database - meaning the developer has to program every aspect of database interaction with no assistance from the IDE - the opposite of FMP where the database is both managed by the IDE and integrated into controls, scripting etc.

Last time I used FMP I was saddened to see it still had a "Repair Database" item IN THE FILE MENU.

Did this really make you sad Richard? You mean a file-based system should be completely immune to any sort of problem arising from errors generated by interrupting a write-to-file for example? I find it reassuring, not saddening that this is there. I have never lost any data, ever, by misusing an FMP database, but i have done when misusing an SQLite db (and don't compare with server-based databases - 'repair database' is only for a file-based DB and is not used for server DBs)

After another few calls from prospective clients leaving FMP, I did a little recon to try to assess mindshare of that platform over time. Just from personal contacts with FMP devs and having attended local FMP user group meetings I had at least an anecdotal sense of attrition rates, but I was surprised to see a subsidiary of one of the wealthiest and most powerful corporations on the planet show search interest only slightly greater than interest in humble LiveCode

Is this a reflection of FMP and LiveCode, or a reflection of the market segment targeted?
Regarding attrition: 99% of the reasons for leaving FMP are the cost. Nothing else. Claris is a greedy subsidiary of Apple and actually reminds be of the worst of the pre-OSX times.

But none of the above mean that FMP's design patterns are not worth emulating.

My point, to re-iterate, was a speculation how to improve ease-of-use of database apps. Appli does that well in some circumstances, by anything more complicated requiring complex relational database isn't really well suited. As you say, Appli serves a different need and does this well.

What would be nice is if LC had a 'database studio' where you could assign any DB back end, graphically design relationships and contexts (similar to SQL views or table occurrences in FMP), and have an integrated way of inserting fields into layouts and data grids for example (or Appli layouts!) as well as integrate with scripting (auto-completes, contextual field selection (eg DbTable::field - typing DbTable:: brings up a list of fields in a popupmenu in the script editor and so on). Actually the scripting integration, rather than just control integration is one of the big strengths of FMP.

Yes, yes, yes - before you say it, i KNOW you can program every aspect of it and this would not confer to new functionality (well, excepting things like calculation fields which you'd have to program by hand in the IDE). But it would speed up dev time significantly as well as making it easier for the less experienced to tackle complex database structures and bringing these directly inside the IDE graphically.

Right now if i'm using SQL for a complex relational DB, I would use Valentina Studio - it's a close approximation to the utility of FMP in designing a database for use in my projects, but lacks several features that made my life easier in FMP.

Just saying that bit would be nice to have these features integrated completely with the IDE, without this being a comment or comparison with Appli or FMP...

[FourthWorld]

What would be nice is if LC had a 'database studio' where you could assign any DB back end, graphically design relationships and contexts...

Another nice thing about using industry-standard open source DB engines is the variety of tooling freely available.

[stam]

Thank you for the pretty and colourful pictures Richard.

As stated I use Valentina Studio Pro where needed for SQL (which does everything you post), but this is not integrated with the IDE. As the examples you post aren’t either. Of course your examples fail if you use a non-SQL backend. Or even just arrays.

Remember, I didn’t say tooling didn’t exist, I said it would be nice to attract users that are perhaps not as accomplished as yourself.

Developers as accomplished as you in other languages by and large won’t have a motivation to switch from their free environments to expensive LiveCode.

The same argument applies to external code editors. Amazing products and tooling are available(and free), just no way to integrate with IDE and if you use these there is a lot of extra legwork required.

Tooling is definitely “out there”. But it’s not “in here”.
Writing code and organising data are basic tasks and if you’re trying to attract developers offering good quality conveniences (tooling is definitely better outside of LiveCode’s IDE) it might go a long way to enticing new users.

Even just providing an integration with an accomplished SQL editor would go a long way, but it would be nicer if the IDE “had awareness” of the data.

[FourthWorld]

Those looking for the precise mix of features that define FileMaker will probably enjoy FileMaker.

I suppose it'd be nice if LC did all the things FileMaker doesn't and also everything FileMaker does.

I'd also like to it include an embedded graphics editor like Photoshop, and a socket comms tool like Postman, and a version manager like GitHub, and a packager that took care of stapling/code-signing/submitting, and a lot of other things.

But more than anything I listed I'd like to have embedded images in fields with specified size, and have option controls that respond to keyboard actions as specified by the OS guidelines.

I can find solutions for everything else. But those two need engine enhancement.

And with those in the queue for so many years, I'm not going to hold my breath for the IDE team to add subsystems already richly handled so well by the world's software communities.

Pondering this has me wondering:

Is it truly a disservice to a new user to not have one company reproduce the efforts of so many others who've specialized in purpose-built solutions?

Or maybe computing workflows have just become more fluid and diverse since the '90s, so that today's audience no longer feels any need to have all possible related tools bear one company logo, instead embracing the multiplicity of free and open options all around them, mixing and matching their favorites into the sorts of integrated multi app worlflows OS have been aiming for all these years.


Those who script are programmers. They probably have opinions about tools, and may enjoy a healthy separation of concerns among dedicated toolmakers.

Those who don't script probably don't care how scripters work.

[richmond62]

Pondering this has me wondering:

This reminds me of 3 things:

1. Jews who feel funny about people reading the books of Enoch, because they are not inwith the canon of the Jewish orthodox Bible.

2. Christians who feel funny about people reading the Gospels of Thomas, Mary and Philip, because they are not inwith the
canon of the Christian New Testament.

3. An argument I had with a 9 year old boy when I got a free LEGO knock-off kit from a supermarket and added it to my enormous
LEGO collection; "But that isn't real LEGO."

In all those cases (including #3) whether one decides to go one way or another is a religious decision,

[Personally, I have the Books of Enoch, all those non-canonical Gospels,
and a vast plastic dustbin full of LEGO mixed with various types of "LEGO"),
and in all 3 cases I can honestly say that they have expanded my view of things.]

as it whether one feels that EVERYTHING should be done inwith LiveCode (or any other programming language), or one
can supplement or even improve one's programming experience and/or results by leveraging add-ons, libraries and
hooks into other bits-and-bobs made in other programming languages.

As 2 things are obvious after a moment's thought:

1. A company will NEVER produce a product that will keep everybody happy.

2. That religious question re one's approach to programming is a religious question.

I would argue that LiveCode's job at the moment is NOT to worry about either #1 or #2.

BUT, its job might be (and, as I am, luckily not in their position I am hedging that with 'might be') to:

1. Sort out ALL the very large number of bugs that have, in some cases, been sitting around for donkey's ages.

2. Get on with a concerted, creative advertising campaign.

3. Produce 2 'books' (they could be rolled into the website):

3.1. How To Program With LiveCode (for people who have NEVER programmed before).

3.2. How To Program With LiveCode (for experienced programmers coming from other programming languages).

[FourthWorld]

BUT, its job might be...

Good list.

I wonder if this is a useful addition to it:

Fall in love with LiveCode.

As it is, right now, warts and all.

Maybe it doesn't need to be something else.

Maybe it's been just fine the whole time .

Maybe trying to be something else is why we're having this discussion.

Fall in love with LiveCode.

As it is, right now.

[richmond62]

Fall in love with LiveCode.

I can honestly say I did that about 20 years ago, and I, for one, do not it want to be anything much more
than it is.

I am not convinced, however, that the people at LC central either love LiveCode, or, indeed, love themselves.

[stam]

Fall in love with LiveCode.

As it is, right now.

I doubt that will fly. At least for developers coming from other languages. As utilitarian as the IDE really is, the GUI will put off people who are uncertain about the product, but were wondering.

I mean, if you were curious about a product, thought you’d have a look and immediately saw an interface that would have been at home in the late 90s you would think the company had no interest in maintaining a modern IDE and you would immediately look elsewhere.

For me the beauty of LC is largely in the language. But it’s hidden behind a dated GUI and that really needs updating if you hope to attract new users. Yes, it’s non-essential superficial nonsense for the most part. But that’s human beings for you…
The new widgets do add something in that respect, but that’s not enough.

Few people will persist with the IDE as it is to get to the gem below the surface. Those that have done are already here

[richmond62]

Supposedly . . .

LC 10 (DP 4 languishing since May) will sport a 'uptodate' GUI.

[stam]

Yep - the prototype they showed looked impressive and combined with compiled scripting would probably go much further in attracting new users (assuming it all works as advertised without ruining the current experience of course )

Combine this with a push on free YouTube videos, courses resold on 3rd party sites like Udemy and a book or two (along with advertising in the right places) and a it seems likely that would really do the trick.
All easier said than done of course. And none of this is cheap.

For my part I plug LiveCode on other forums when the situation arises, as I truly believe in it as a platform for creating apps and specialised tools and am so much more productive using this.

I like to think I may have turned a head or two but some factors limit word-of-mouth adoption: the x-talk language is just too different from C style languages where most feel comfortable; and as mention the interface is dated…

[richmond62]

the prototype they showed looked impressive

Possibly . . . I wonder why, if it is so impressive, they are not banging on about it endlessly on
their website with lots of groovy pictures to show how much better it is than the current one
we have had, bar a few colour changes to the menuBar, since RunRev 2 (cripes)?

Oh, and the Properties palette back around version 8.

Surely, that would be a major plus in terms of advertising?

[FourthWorld]

the prototype they showed looked impressive

Possibly . . . I wonder why, if it is so impressive, they are not banging on about it endlessly on
their website with lots of groovy pictures to show how much better it is than the current one..

That last phrase answers the question. Product managers recognize it as a form of sales cannibalization often referred to as the Osborn Effect for its role in destroying an early leader in the PC market: playing up a new version prematurely tells customers not to buy today. Given enough of a time gap between versions, such communications can impact revenue needed for completing the later version.

Given that v10 is at this state experimental with a wide-ranging potential to shift directions in both design and underlying features, best left for ardent insiders.

LC v9 is a fine and sellable product as-is.

[richmond62]

Ah, that is a valid point that had not occurred to me.

Let's hope, that a new IDE having been promised, those who seem to feel it is important do not have to wait over long and wander off elsewhere.

[FourthWorld]

Fall in love with LiveCode.

As it is, right now.

I doubt that will fly. At least for developers coming from other languages.

Are those already committed to another language really the best prospects?

LC is an "also" for most pro devs. Which is great, because most of today's pros are polyglots. With those already committed to knowledge and tooling in anything else, LC's a sidepiece, not a marriage. It's the exciting beauty they keep returning to time and again in between more routine assignments. She says yes to all the things you want to do with software development that your main squeeze keeps telling you you shouldn't want to be doing. More Aubrey Plaza than Betty Crocker.

LC can play a strong supporting role in nearly any workflow. But only if it's understood as such, part of the workflow of a pro dev.

It doesn't need to replace anything. For pros, it augments.

But it can't augment if it's not understood.

And it can't be understood if it's dressed up in an ill-fitting suit to make it appear to be anything other than what it is.

Love it as the unusual tool it is, spread the joy of equally unusually productive results.

Rediscover the youthful passions of a secret getaway to an exotic location where you can explore freely and feel richly rewarded for the deviance.

And that's just pros, of which there are roughly 28 million. Just 0.01% of them would bring in 2800 news users in this forum.

Beyond the pros are the tinkerers, who dabble in software but earn their living doing something else. We don't know how many more of those there are, but most of LC's audience fits that definition, where LC plays a strong role in a job that isn't primarily programming in LC, or programming at all.

Consider, to pick an example at random, an inventive cardiologist, or an innovative teacher, or a helpful neighbor who hears a friend complaining about something they need to do moving data around and sees a simpler way to do it.

There is no single use case. There is no one persona. LC serves a looooooooong tail of needs.

Perhaps the only thing LC users have in common is that they're uncommon. LiveCode is the Fanfare for the Uncommon Man.

If recognized, the opportunity to do things Adobe can't do reveals itself:

Adobe is powerful. Only fools compete with a juggernaut of that size. They make products that address large markets, and they make billions doing it.

But what they can't do is even roll out of bed in the morning if putting their slippers on doesn't produce tens of millions of dollars. Their burn rate is bigger than the GDP of some nations. They have no choice but to do super-big things. They have super-big bills to pay. What Adobe pays in property tax alone is a multiple of total revenue from most medium businesses.

A dinosaur can't squeeze into a niche. But a mouse can.

LiveCode doesn't need tens of millions of customers. It would be nice, but nothing in the mission requires it, and nothing in the nature of the technology as a scripting language suggests numbers like that would be in any way reasonable to aim for.

LiveCode can do what giant companies can't: be excited by growth measured in numbers as low as thousands.

Kevin once described LC's sweet spot as a perfect fit for highly vertical apps, solutions beyond common needs. I think he's right. And I think embracing that deeply is the future.

As utilitarian as the IDE really is, the GUI will put off people who are uncertain about the product, but were wondering.

When encountering something new, uncertainty is an excellent response.

Uncertainty is evidence of curiosity.

How does one respond to a curious inquiry?

Apology answers the question with "Look elsewhere".

Doubling-down with vigor won't grab everyone, but will speak to those are likely to enjoy such an unusual experience.

"You think this looks weird? Damn straight. You don't know the half of it. It's weirdness all the way down, in the dictionary sense: "of or pertaining to the supernatural". If you want run-of-the-mill, go to runofthemilldevoptions.com and knock yourself out. But if you're an adventurous soul yearning for something beyond the mundane, step into this magic bus and let's go for a ride. LiveCode can take you places you've never seen before. Yeah, it's unusual. And that's how it delivers unusually productive results."

Here's one actionable suggestion off the top of my head which could be part of an in-your-face-oh-yes-we're-fully-owning-the-weidness content strategy:

Stop apologizing for offering multiple windows. Other IDEs just draw pictures of software; LC is truly live. LC's IDE lives inside your app, not the other way around. Modularity in tool access leaves the environment open for your imagination. If you just want to draw pictures of software and not be able to see it in action until you compile it and execute in a totally different environment, C is awesome.

Another: drop any reference to "low code". Use a hashtag here and there in socmed, but devote no copy to it. It's vague and meaningless anyway, arguably applies to any scripting language compared to compiled languages, and those who can use it with confidence are only able to do so because they've invested in building a VAST collection of freely-available add-ons, wheels no one needs to write. It's an unmeetable expectation with LC at this time, but thankfully it's also unnecessary. Drop unnecessary distractions that play into the strengths of giants. Be the thing that offers a difference.

[richmond62]

Oh, quite: why do I get cheesed-off when people try to compare LiveCode with other programming efforts?

What they should be doing is asking, "What can it do for me?"

and

"What can I do with it?"

and "What can it do for me, and what can I do with it that either I cannot do with other programming
efforts or can only do with other programming efforts with considerable more work?"

I spent 2 weeks messing around with Python and still do not know how to make a window with a button and a text field!

My Devawriter Pro would have been a non-starter without the WYSIWYG nature of LiveCode: after all, apart from the font design
there would have been the endless, mind-numbing crap of having to hand-code all the GUI.

If I want to plot lissajous figures or bijoux sine curves I don't use LiveCode, I use BBC BASIC (normally on one of my BBC Micro computers ).

I would NOT want to milk cows with a chainsaw any more than I'd like to cut down trees with a pair of rubber gloves
and a bucket of udder cream.

If I really wanted a unified, full-screen IDE, I'd probably either knock together my own in LiveCode (come one, cannot
be unduly difficult - just time-consuming), or go elsewhere: but I don't, I like the current IDE, and that's why I don't use
the wall-to-wall IDE that is optional in GIMP, and dislike that with Inkscape and Krita.

I also cannot get worked up by the Data Grid as I can use a spread sheet thing for "all that", such as LibreOffice Calc.