Is forever really forever?

[richmond62]

Kevin Miller has moved to England.

[dunbarx]

Richmond.

Is this news ominous, terrific or not news at all?

Craig

[richmond62]

I really don't know, but someone else was looking at Livecode's company records and pointed out several odd things.

[jacque]

There's nothing odd about it. The team is not always concentrated in Edinburgh, many work remotely. We live in a connected world, I'm surprised anyone would think it matters.

We've hijacked this thread again.

[richmond62]

We've hijacked this thread again.

Not completely as the subject is 'forever' (a subjective subject).

And what becomes crystal clear . . .

from the records of the LiveCode company in Britain is that nothing is 'forever' and nothing is quite what it seems.

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... 28/charges

[stam]

from the records of the LiveCode company in Britain is that nothing is 'forever' and nothing is quite what it seems.
https://find-and-update.company-informa ... 28/charges

Is this link news to you? This is an old story and while I don't understand the legalese, my impression was that this concluded about 3 years ago. But in truth I don't know, the language used in these documents is impenetrable to non-lawyers.

I suspect this just reflects the really tough times the company and its staff have had to go through to keep the company going while everyone was complaining about stuff not being free. While some of this hardship can be attributed to LC Ltd's own choices, it's clear they've been through the mill to keep this going.
However laudable though, this has permanently dented the uptake and spread of LiveCode.
Loyal devs have stayed, but natural attrition, unsustainable policies, and a no-mans land of half baked products are likely to dent that further still.

It's a real pity, but sentiment can only carry a company so far and if it doesn't deliver... well...

I love the language and the immediacy of the code.
I don't need newfangled widgets and AI - they're nice if they work as expected and are well documented, but at best only 1 of those conditions is satisfied and often neither are. What I do need is well-documented functionality that makes coding quicker and my life easier.

I need an IDE that caters for project organisation, collaboration, version control, integration with code editors, AI etc.

I need it to be financially viable, which includes the concept of apps still running even when my subscription lapses but more importantly it has to be at least easily affordable, if not free - not for me personally, but for all, because if only handful pay for this there will never be any growth in the ecosystem, let alone the company.

I had hoped LC10 (as originally advertised) and compiled scripts would address some of this, but with it morphing to LC Create and with how things are going years down the line, I have serious doubts about maintaining a subscription. Which also means I've basically stopped using LC because with the stupid new policy of apps expiring if/when a subscription expires.
I just can't invest any sane amount of time into LC any more and am using other tools so I can be sure that if I do build something it will keep working no matter what.

I do hope that LC pulls this off, but for now I'm not convinced I'll ever see that, more's the pity.
Is forever really forever? No. Everything changes and it always feels that it never changes for the better...

[richmond62]

You could always take a walk on the wild side: both the Open Source continuation IDE and the web-browser implementation.

Forever is never forever: but some good folk are prolonging 'things' for a bit.

[stam]

You could always take a walk on the wild side: both the Open Source continuation IDE and the web-browser implementation.

Forever is never forever: but some good folk are prolonging 'things' for a bit.

The “wild side” as you call it is not (yet?) fit for my purposes. Webtalk, while cute and surprisingly performant, feels like a toy and needs a lot more development for it to useful in the sense I need it to be. As for OpenXTalk, I’ve yet to be able to run the IDE as it is not codesigned, I’m on latest OSX and I will not switch off security to run this.

Then there’s the long term view - where are these products going? Will they be developed further professionally or remain hobby projects of a few individuals?

For my purposes I need robust technologies that will evolve to stay current with new OS’s and the apps they create need to be bulletproof and performant. That means I need a bulletproof and feature complete platform now, not at some indeterminate point in the future.

At present I’m using another niche environment as a stopgap, but will be transitioning to mainstream toolchains as there also needs to be some forward planning - these can’t all run by my input alone, these need to be in an accessible language so that others can take over in the event something happens to be for example.

That was the long answer.

The short answer is that no, I will not be following Lou Reed’s advice to “walk on the wild side”…

[dunbarx]

Maybe it was always naive to believe that the software first touted as for the "rest of us" could ever survive growing up in the world we currently live in. The good ol' days are for the most part gone, in whatever guise that phrase applies. That is normal.

Again, I hope that the silence felt among usual crowd on this forum, whose roots go back to Hypercard, and LiveCode, Ltd., is because they have outgrown us. Think of parents watching their kids grow up and move away. Sad, but hopefully happy down deep.

Except that we are the kids...

Craig

[richmond62]

The “wild side” as you call it is not (yet?) fit for my purposes.

let's deal with your incredibly dismissive reply bit by bit:

Webtalk, while cute and surprisingly performant, feels like a toy and needs a lot more development for it to useful in the sense I need it to be.

I always thought 'cute' was an American word applied to babies.

If Webtalk "feels like a toy and needs a lot more development for it to useful" then one of the ways to accelerate its development is to come and contribute to that development.

"in the sense I need it to be" Well then, surely, it would be in your self interest (and "I need it to be." seems to indicate that you are not really bothered about how Webtalk may serve other people) to come and contribute to that development.

As for OpenXTalk, I’ve yet to be able to run the IDE as it is not codesigned, I’m on latest OSX and I will not switch off security to run this.

Well, apart from the fact that the much vaunted codesigning is shot full of more holes than a string vest . . .

It has been pointed out by someone much more informed than me that Sentinel answers that objection:

https://github.com/alienator88/Sentinel

Then there’s the long term view - where are these products going?

Well, I wonder why you never asked that question when you decided to 'climb into bed' with LiveCode?

Will they be developed further professionally or remain hobby projects of a few individuals?

I wonder whether Bill Atkinson was asking himself that sort of question when he was dropping acid in his basement?

And that distinction between "professionally" and "hobby" is offensive, inaccurate, and misses the whole point about programming nowadays.

For my purposes I need robust technologies

Well, depending on which way you choose to look at things: LiveCode was/is either a robust technology (it has been around for far longer than an awful lot of other programming environments), or it has always been a series of updates/upgrades tacked onto a base that has become ever-more convoluted with a huge pile of unaddressed bug reports.

As, currently, OXT is running on a modified version of the Open Source LiveCode engine, it should have the same status.

Webtalk is being built on top of Javascript (which seems 'robust') by an incredibly talented individual without any reliance on the LiveCode engine whatsoever.

That means I need a bulletproof and feature complete platform now, not at some indeterminate point in the future.

I am not sure how OXT can be less 'bulletproof' than LiveCode is it is, effectively, LiveCode with "new boots and panties'.

I do not quite understand what 'feature complete' means: OXT is at least as feature complete as LiveCode 9.6.3 with the addition of some new features.

performant

What an odd word: I went and checked its meaning:

"functioning well or as expected": OXT functions at least as well as LiveCode.

Of course, if you expect more features or functionality that either the latest release of LiveCode or OXT (have elevated your expectations from the version of LiveCode you are currently using), then the way to address that is to come along and contribute.

these need to be in an accessible language

I'd be interested to know HOW the language in OXT is in any way less accessible than in LiveCode, when it is the same language.

so that others can take over in the event something happens to be for example.

Surely that is your problem? In my programs I have notes that go a bit like this:

Code: Select all

--This is where I am checking in field "fINPUT" to see if there is another consonant lined up to come after 'KA'

This attempts to ensure that if I am run over by a bus, or go gaga, anyone bonkers enough to wish to do further development with my Devawriter has a hope in hell's chance of what a certain SWITCH staement is attempting to do.

[FourthWorld]

As for OpenXTalk, I’ve yet to be able to run the IDE as it is not codesigned, I’m on latest OSX and I will not switch off security to run this.

Well, apart from the fact that the much vaunted codesigning is shot full of more holes than a string vest . . .

It has been pointed out by someone much more informed than me that Sentinel answers that objection:

https://github.com/alienator88/Sentinel

I would caution against assuming dedicated security professionals are idiots, esp after acknowledging that such discussions lie outside one's own focused areas of multi-year study.

Like any security practice, the codesigning used by leading OSes these days isn't perfect or complete, and thankfully doesn't claim to be either.

But it does stop a certain range of Trojan horses, which is all it was designed to do.

Most discussions of vulnerabilities begin with "if you have physical access to the computer", which just reminds us of one of the most enduring maxims of infosec: "Physical access equals root".

Premisis security may be less exotic than cool hacks, but remains a cornerstone of protecting systems, as are the myriad habits useful for safely handling private keys.

I have a friend who teaches infosec, and he begins his course with the laptops closed to focus instead on an exercise in picking locks.

There's a reason most hacks making the headlines these days begin with phishing. The software we use these days is generally pretty good; it's the wetware which remains most vulnerable.

Before assessing the skills of someone tasked with implementing a security feature, I'd ask if those critiquing the work encrypt their laptop volumes, or at least the partition where keys are stored. If we want to avoid getting caught with our pants down, as the bad guys create ever more clever scissors we value both belt and suspenders.

Being responsible for protecting others' data isn't a single technology we install and forget; it's a perspective, a process, a way of life.

[jacque]

The reason most of us use LC is because it's the language for "the rest of us." That's why I can't contribute to the OSS project, LC is the only language I know. I suspect there are relatively few of us who know C and are capable of contributing.

[richmond62]

That's why I can't contribute to the OSS project

Oddly enough you can, just as I do, in a small way, even though I know nothing of 'C'.

A lot of what can be done is identifying bugs, and what we could call "shortfalls" in the legacy code, as well as running projects that we previously worked with in LC in OXT.

The more people who can offer feedback and suggestions, the better.

AND, mavens of your ilk are what are desperately needed.

[richmond62]

against assuming dedicated security professionals are idiots

I did not say that, write that, or assume that. So there is an unwarranted assumption about what is going on inside my head.

Of course I do wonder how much Apple's 'dedicated security professionals' are that, or people working in Apple's commercial interests; and would also point out that the two matters may not always coincide.

What I wrote was this:

the much vaunted codesigning is shot full of more holes than a string vest . . .

To paraphrase someone else:

Even if it be codesigned, a person can wreak absolute havoc with a terminal command in a SIGNED version of a Mac application.

[FourthWorld]

Richmond, dismissing reasonable security measures so sweepingly is the point; the exact wording of the dismissal less so. If you think codesigning is a solid good move you'd have saved us both time by simply using words that reflect what you mean to express.

Your reply concludes with a confirmation of the adage "Physical access equal root", so whether you understand what the Apple engineers are doing or not, at least we're in agreement that it's doing what it's designed to do.