Livecode Standard Plan

[FourthWorld]

Richard.

Am I somehow disingenuous in my thinking that only classic can do anything, never mind that Create can do lots of things?

I'm not sure how "disingenuous" could apply.

It's all more or less the same engine, with the biggest difference being the IDE stacks files. One of the things I've enjoyed about MC/Rev/LC is that I can modify the IDE however I like, even replace it.

If admiration for an engine that offers so much flexibility is a bad thing, I guess I'm a very bad person.

[matgarage]

Wow
I've noticed that a passion for LiveCode (like love) stirs up strong emotions.
The beauty you can find in code (and its execution) is comparable to the emotions you might feel when listening to music.
My first experience (not romantic) was with a Commodore 64.
I was a teenager, living in the countryside, and had no resources around me to guide me. It was the era when you loaded games onto the machine using a cassette player. I discovered BASIC by copying programs published in a newspaper.
Then, a few years later, I started working on layout design on a MacPlus . A revolution!

After years of exploration, tinkering, and frustration with the limited functionality of the software I was using, I discovered LiveCode during the Kickstarter campaign. A whole new world of computing opened up to me. I was finally able to create the tools I needed. A dream come true.

The way revolutionary minds lose their bearings once they’re confronted with the harsh reality of the world spares almost no one.
We are disappointed because we believed too firmly that all it took was believing hard enough for it to work. Perhaps like the forces behind the LiveCode project.
You have given me hope again, however, because enthusiasts are taking up the torch and keeping the project alive.
We will be able to continue enjoying coding, and that is what matters most.
The dream lives on.

[dunbarx]

Richard.

Classic IDE is still available as an option in Create, and I can't imagine any benefit in adding the additional expense of somehow purging it later on.

"Still available..." That seems like a tenuous hope; the effort of maintaining its compatibility with Create might either orphan it, or require it to go away. In any event, I intend to believe that classic will always be included in the Create package. I wonder if I will ever use Create, however. After all, who likes to learn new things?

Craig

[RogGuay]

OXT is open and welcoming, so come on in the water's warm.

Not to me! Though I've tried several times, I have not gained access to its forum

Roger

[Emily-Elizabeth]

Not to me! Though I've tried several times, I have not gained access to its forum

Yeah, I had the same issue, but I messaged Richmond and he talked to the admins there and got it all sorted out for me, perhaps he can do the same for you.

[richmond62]

Just so......

[RogGuay]

Not to me! Though I've tried several times, I have not gained access to its forum

Yeah, I had the same issue, but I messaged Richmond and he talked to the admins there and got it all sorted out for me, perhaps he can do the same for you.

Richmond obviously likes you best. I messaged him as well and nothing happened!

Roger

[richmond62]

Here's what one of the admins over there has to say:

I wasn't going to touch the computer this weekend, but I find myself on here organising.
What email address or username did he choose? Can you find out please?

Trawling through the spambots, I kind of need to know what genuine users to let through.

Although there is something slightly wrong with the logic: "to know what genuine users to let through" seems to indictate that he might not let some genuine users through.

Oh, and:

https://tsites.co.uk/sites/feedback/

[FourthWorld]

Richard.

Classic IDE is still available as an option in Create, and I can't imagine any benefit in adding the additional expense of somehow purging it later on.

"Still available..." That seems like a tenuous hope; the effort of maintaining its compatibility with Create might either orphan it, or require it to go away.

I see it as opposite: I can't see how swapping a set of IDE stacks would benefit from the additional effort that would be needed up introduce a way to prevent that.

Indeed, given the nature of each, it would seem most useful to let them be. One can build the Create IDE stacks with the Classic IDE stacks, but Create can't build Classic.

I haven't read any published commitment to Classic one way or another, but the most cost-effective path would be to keep it in maintenance and continue using it as the workshop where Create is worked on.

[richmond62]

the most cost-effective path

A path which shows no evidence of having been trodden in the past.

Personally, if I hadn't found what I feel is a viable alternative, I'd be stumping up the money to climb completely into bed with Create at the point it stops being in beta, and presupposing I had had access to a Demo.

My reasoning runs on much the same sort of lines as when Apple moved from MacOS 9 to MacOS 10: while it was possible to run most MacOS 9 programs up until MacOS 10.4, it was at a performance hit, and at the release of MacOS 10.5 support ended. I quickly found equivalents to all the MacOS 9 programs I used that worked on MacOS 10 as I realised that that support for 'classic' was temporary, and as Apple gave no indication when it would go for good . . .

[richmond62]

continue using it as the workshop where Create is worked on

The company may do that: but whether they are going to continue licensing it to others is another question.

[FourthWorld]

continue using it as the workshop where Create is worked on

The company may do that: but whether they are going to continue licensing it to others is another question.

What conjecture about any future doesn't involve unknowns?

I'm just looking at the pragmatic aspects from a business owner perspective:

What they sell is an engine, where license enforcement happens.

Any GUI app needs a UI, so the engine comes with a set of stack files which provide that UI.

For first decade of this engine, everyone used the rather bare-bones MC IDE. Then Crossworlds made a better one, became RunRev, made it better still, while some of us had already evolved our own tooling around MC and continued using that. Along the way countless other tools have popped up. And now the engine owner is making another one, Create.

What they sell is an engine. It does them no harm - and much good - if people invest in using that engine to tailor their workflow with their own UI stacks.

As long as the engine can open stack files, it can open stack files.

Any GUI, even tooling, are just stack files.

The complications that would be needed to invent some mechanism that tries to prevent opening some stack files while allowing others would be an endless drain on resource - and to what end?

Why spend engineering *reducing* the assessable market, by preventing people from doing one of the most valuable reasons xTalks are great, the ability to tailor the workflow?

If one needs to fixate on Henny Penny scenarios, the bigger risk of to the engine itself. It's expensive to maintain, and while I can appreciate the through-line of moving up the value chain - from hobbyists in the first decade, to indies in the second, now focusing on enterprise - the global business landscape is always fraught with uncertainty and change.

Nothing is guaranteed in any aspect of life. That this engine has granted us 35 years is pretty remarkable in itself. It'd be great if it went on another 35 years, but so much changes in computing it's hard to see beyond technology's short event horizon.

So in any given moment, we just make that most of what's on hand, hope for the best, remain flexible when life rolls snake eyes rather than the box cars we'd hoped for.