[ ANN ] Release LiveCode 10.0.3 RC-2

[stam]

Stam, what do you mean by:

Sadly, LC is not what it used to be and LC Create, which is now what has officially replaced LC, is a a long way off being able to offer what LC once did.

I thought Create was a new paradigm that would replace good ol' LC. To me, that is concerning because I am not likely to embrace Create unless it can magically do much of the work that I do now, which I do not believe. But is that what you meant, simply, that standard LC development would someday soon cease? If so, then I understand, but it ain't dead yet.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit - I'm referring to the current state of the LCC. I fully acknowledge that one day this may be performant and nice environment to use, but in its present state it's hard to even call even beta software. Everything is difficult to use, and the fluidity of the IDE is just not there. Hopefully it will be at some point, but it's hard to see how that won't be at least a year or two from now, if not longer. I can genuinely struggle to use LCC more than an hour before I switch to LC Classic.

The saving grace is that LC10 is bundled with LCC and called "classic", with the added bonus of having access to the new widgets. So if you're considering jumping to LCC, I would recommend this because you'd get the latest LC10 and have early access to LCC.

[dunbarx]

Stam.

OK.

I cannot understand how LC Classic could ever be mothballed because I cannot imagine that Create could ever fully replace it. Even if Create built most of a new stack, it will always be necessary to write a handler here and there from scratch, and that requires a full featured Classic. This assumes that we are not just building a brand new Dollar-to Franc converter. And I assume that Create knows enough to first load today's exchange rate from the internet.

No?

So is it just that LC10 is considered adequate for all future needs, will always be part of the package, and Create is just a new foundation?

Are there any other magical "Creates" out there, that LC is racing to match?

Craig

[stam]

I cannot imagine that Create could ever fully replace it. Even if Create built most of a new stack, it will always be necessary to write a handler here and there from scratch, and that requires a full featured Classic.

That’s not correct.
You can edit the script of any objects and you can add any number of handers in LCC.

The IDE needs optimising - as it’s set up, it’s not great and you have to do a few things to maximise the SE and the msgBox eats up a lot of space, but I would imagine the UI optimisation is what they’re working on now… I’m sure it’s a lot of work.

I think most automation in LCC generates clean LiveCodeScript which you can edit as much as you want…

[stam]

Oh I missed that. I understand the IDE not working if unsubbed, but this... This is truly a humdinger that will put off the vast majority of potential new customers.

I can see the intended logic: try to maximise revenue by forcing all users of LC create to always stay subscribed, and not have a situation where users pay for a month or two to develop an app and then unsubscribe, thereby losing potential revenue that could have been accrued by longer subs.

The reality however is that while this will work with existing pro users making money off LC, this definitely will put a massive dent into the lesser revenue from temp users but more importantly into recruitment of new users, who much like yourself, will not even give LCC a second glance having read that 1 line...

I wonder what the actual cost-benefit analysis would be for these two options:

a) Allow 'temporary' users to use LC for a month or two to develop a never-dying app (keeping in mind that successful app creating will lead to them coming back to LC for more). Provide financial incentives (lower cost) for long-term subscriptions.

b) Forbid transient subscriptions by killing apps on unsubscription, which will effectively kill new user recruitment and will fragment the existing user base to only keep those who are happy to subscribe endlessly. This contains the assumption that if the existing paying user base stay subscribed, that will suffice for LC - expansion of the user base is not needed.

Without knowing the actual numbers or calculations my intuition is that the latter is may not the better option... but I guess LC has done the calculations and reckons this will work for them. Not sure if that works for most of us though...

[dunbarx]

Stam, LiveCode.

I am confused. If I make an app, which is a standalone containing a LC engine (I believe), how could it depend on the current status of one's subscription? It would run on a computer not currently connected to the internet, No?

Don't tell me that were it in fact connected, and my subscription lapsed, it would stop dead in its tracks.

On another note, how is it possible that experienced and loyal users (the "rest of us") still cannot fully grasp what is happening?

Craig.

[Hutchboy]

Hi,

I had similar questions so emailed Heather at support:

"Hi,

In your FAQ section regarding app licensing my understanding is that if I create an application it will only run if I have an active license for LiveCode and that any app I might create would require an internet connection to check license status in order to run. There is mention of reaching out for special licensing arrangements.

I need to plan for my LiveCode work over the next few years so I need to ask a couple of clarifying questions.

1. If I want to distribute an application on the Apple App Store, for instance, am I to understand that the person that downloads my app will be burdened by requiring an internet connection to periodically check the license status and that if my LC license was to lapse for any reason their app will suddenly die. This approach seems to make sense for large commercial apps but not for someone like me, who may want to distribute simple applications either for free or profit, sharing any profit with you per your reasonable fee conditions

2. Is the Apple App Store or any other distribution center ok with this internet validation and having customers complain should their download app stop working?

I’m on the two LC forums and there is ongoing discussions about this specific topic with some weighing in already that this is a deal breaker for them and they are starting to look outside of LiveCode for their development needs.

Thanks,

Michael Roberts"

Here is her response:

"Hello Michael Roberts,

Thank you for your request.

Apps built with LiveCode Create will require the owner of the app to have an active license in order to run, yes that is correct. The app will not require an always on internet connection, it will just occasionally "call home" to confirm the licensing is still active.

For apps that use the AI features and the backend data management, an internet connection is going to be essential. These features cost us money, we cannot afford to provide them for apps that no longer pay us any licensing.

If you have an app that cannot ever go online and check its licensing, then at our discretion we can come to a custom arrangement with you, which will involve a signed and binding agreement that you will keep your LiveCode Create licensing current and appropriate for the app usage. Having a fully offline app does not exempt you from the requirement for valid licensing.

I appreciate this licensing model may not suit every use case. It is clear however that enough users are happy with it and that LiveCode Create brings these users a great deal of value.

Best Regards,

Heather"

Reviewing the new website I can see the audience they are addressing. I think honestly that to remain viable they are probably wise to focus on that market. I suspect that the situation for smaller independent and hobbyist users may shake out over time. Heather did not specifically answer my question about the Apple App Store but I appreciated her quick and frank response. I may have to rethink what kind of apps I want to develop but I'm sticking with LiveCode for the future ( I renew my Universal subscription in just a couple of days)

-Mike

[dunbarx]

Hmmm.

So it is mostly true. The app checks back now and then to make sure it is still, er, valid. Rather different from the old way.

For someone like me, who builds stacks and standalones only for my own use, never for profit, this may mean that I never use Create. Well, I can live with that.

So just for my own edification, can anyone tell me where and when in the ongoing evolution of LC, starting from today, I can retire in my old age, close my relationship with LC, and never having used Create still make and use stacks? In other words, when must I leave the fold, take my program and go home?

And understand that I am happy to maintain my subscription just to support the platform, just because. Just like I have always done.

Craig

[richmond62]

You, Craig, can seriously consider wandering over to another place where you can continue using the IDE "we know and love" without any 'spy in the cab', or, for that matter, having to pay any money whatsoever.

[dunbarx]

Richmond.

By "another place", do you mean the ongoing community world, or some version of LC 10 before it is subsumed into Create? Maybe either?

I am not worried about spies, I am worried, likely without foundation, that the Create paradigm will replace the hands-on old fashioned one. I think Stam has reassured me this will always be available.

I assume LC knows what they are doing, and the dear, beloved old way just does not cut it any longer. Gone are the old, lingering HC expectations. That is life.

Craig

[richmond62]

I mean both the ongoing community version, and the ongoing web-based version: and not a single robot is involved.

The ongoing community version and Create are now set on totally different paths, and as such I don't see how anyone can now be miffed by my mentioning either of them here, as, frankly, I no longer see them as competing in any sort of meaningful fashion.

[jacque]

So just for my own edification, can anyone tell me where and when in the ongoing evolution of LC, starting from today, I can retire in my old age, close my relationship with LC, and never having used Create still make and use stacks? In other words, when must I leave the fold, take my program and go home?

LC has said they will support the current IDE until (or through?) 2027. After that we're on our own.

I have mixed feelings about AI. It encourages people to rely on machines rather than their own mind, even as education here in the US is failing for much of our population. I read yesterday that today's youth largely cannot pass tests given to school children in the 1950s. I mourn for those who think LOL signifies the end of a sentence.

On the other hand, I used Google Flow to bring my little deceased parrot back to life by animating a photo of him. I was overcome by the lifelike presentation, he could have been real.

I hardly know what to think about all this.

[dunbarx]

Jacque.

LC has said they will support the current IDE until (or through?) 2027. After that we're on our own.

I recall that, and knowing how things go in the real world, I bet it will carry on for a while after that.

Anyway, "on our own" does not bother me. If I always have even my current LC 9.6.9 I am happy, and always will be.

But will I still have you?

Craig

[dunbarx]

Jacque.

Ah, AI.

I have had, since 2016, a running battle with a handful of very smart people. "Can a seagull hover, for any finite time period, over a fixed point on the earth in a horizontal breeze without flapping its wings?". It cannot. Two people died along the way. Really.

About six months ago I asked that question, framed as above, of ChatGPT. It gave the wrong answer, that is, "Yes it can". After chastising it mightily, and mentioning such minor details as the law of conservation of energy, after considerable back and forth it agreed it was indeed impossible, and knew the reason why.

I asked the very same question four more times over the next few months. I always got the wrong answer initially. Same back and forth. I was surprised it did not refer to our mutual conversational history.

On the sixth try it gave the correct answer. I asked it, snarkily, "why this time?". It told me it was a "weakness" in the large language model, that is, the way it is trained. It has a predilection to respond in a manner that the average person would find acceptable and understandable, commensurate with popular viewpoints. It told me that if I wanted the truth, ahem, especially with queries of a technical nature, that I must explicitly preface my question with, say, "Considering currently accepted physical laws...".

Craig

[jacque]

I asked Google Gemini and it gave a precise response with caveats, basically that the wind speed must be strong enough, otherwise no:

https://g.co/gemini/share/2477e9ec5fd1