Re: Cocoa

I can inform anyone interested that runrevmark has replied to my post in the forum. It can be found here: http://forums.runrev.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=18504&p=98667#p98667 As I suspected it is not intended to have a “FULL” (for want of a better word) port of LC to Cocoa. It is the backend, w

Re: Cocoa

Hi, A good suggestion. I have posted to the thread and will await a reply. All the best Terry On 9 Mar 2014, at 18:56, Paul Hibbert wrote: > Just a thought, if you ask on the forum thread maybe you will get response > from RunRevMark, he's the one doing the programming so he's in the best

Re: Cocoa

Terry, Just a thought, if you ask on the forum thread maybe you will get response from RunRevMark, he's the one doing the programming so he's in the best position to answer your questions, and he did start that thread. Paul On 2014-03-09, at 10:07 AM, Terence Heaford wrote: > Yes, I have r

Re: Cocoa

On 3/9/14, 12:07 PM, Terence Heaford wrote: Yes, I have read that but it does not say very much at all and certainly does not discuss native vs emulated controls. I didn't read it all, but try this: It mentions windows, popups, and panels which are

Re: Cocoa

On 09/03/14 20:39, J. Landman Gay wrote: On 3/9/14, 12:07 PM, Terence Heaford wrote: Yes, I have read that but it does not say very much at all and certainly does not discuss native vs emulated controls. My educated guess is that all controls will be OS-native. LC calls on the OS for many of

Re: Cocoa

On 09/03/14 20:19, Terence Heaford wrote: Not biting on this one, sorry. I only asked questions that I thought were worthy of an answer from RunRev or someone who may know in their stead. I don’t know the answer to those questions and only asked. Do you mock or are you a zealot? A bit of bo

Re: Cocoa

On 3/9/14, 12:07 PM, Terence Heaford wrote: Yes, I have read that but it does not say very much at all and certainly does not discuss native vs emulated controls. My educated guess is that all controls will be OS-native. LC calls on the OS for many of its functions, and porting to Cocoa will a

Re: Cocoa

It’s my understanding that certain enhancements planned could only be done in Cocoa. I could be wrong though. Bob On Mar 9, 2014, at 07:10 , Richmond mailto:richmondmathew...@gmail.com>> wrote: And why is Cocoa so urgent anyway? Livecode works as it is right now; so the Kickstarter money is

Re: Cocoa

On Mar 9, 2014, at 10:29 AM, John Dixon wrote: > Terry... > > What do you want 'cocoa' to do that you can't do now ? Although not mentioned so far, one thing Cocoa might (or will hopefully) bring is the ability to sell all apps on the Mac App Store. We currently can’t do that if the app rea

Re: Cocoa

Not biting on this one, sorry. I only asked questions that I thought were worthy of an answer from RunRev or someone who may know in their stead. I don’t know the answer to those questions and only asked. Do you mock or are you a zealot? Do you often poke fun at the dead? I don’t, so will not

Re: Cocoa

On 09/03/14 19:29, John Dixon wrote: Terry... What do you want 'cocoa' to do that you can't do now ? Probably this: "the Cocoa programming environment automates many aspects of an application to comply with Apple's human interface guidelines"

RE: Cocoa

Terry... What do you want 'cocoa' to do that you can't do now ? > Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:12:25 +0200 > From: richmondmathew...@gmail.com > To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Subject: Re: Cocoa > > On 09/03/14 19:04, Terence Heaford wrote: > > Ex

Re: Cocoa

On 09/03/14 19:04, Terence Heaford wrote: Exactly, what will the Cocoa Port contain. See my original list of questions. I’m feeling lucky. RunRev will read this and make a statement of their intentions. I have a feeling that the hard-working people at RunRev are, very sensibly (quite unlike

Re: Cocoa

Yes, I have read that but it does not say very much at all and certainly does not discuss native vs emulated controls. All the best Terry On 9 Mar 2014, at 16:36, Martin Koob wrote: > http://forums.runrev.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=18504 ___

Re: Cocoa

Exactly, what will the Cocoa Port contain. See my original list of questions. I’m feeling lucky. RunRev will read this and make a statement of their intentions. All the best Terry On 9 Mar 2014, at 16:15, Richmond wrote: > The "final goal" is, surely, to have a Cocoa port? I think that has

Re: Cocoa

Have you seen the thread on the progress on Cocoa in the LiveCode Forums? http://forums.runrev.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=18504 Martin -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Cocoa-tp4676779p4676797.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing li

Re: Cocoa

On 09/03/14 17:27, J. Landman Gay wrote: One reason you haven't got an answer is because you asked after close > of business on a weekend. Another reason is that RR doesn't often > read this user-supported list. > > But their progress on the Cocoa port isn't a secret and if I remember > right,

Re: Cocoa

On 09/03/14 17:02, Terence Heaford wrote: I can’t make a decision on whether or not it is wasted because RunRev have not made a statement on what a port to Cocoa is? Even though they are working on it they do not seem to want to expose their intentions. You are right there. I think, to be f

Re: Cocoa

This is it. It’s progress. but… Progress to wards what outcome? Where is the outcome detailed? I can’t find it. It’s another working week tomorrow. Perhaps I will be lucky and RunRev will see this thread. All the best Terry On 9 Mar 2014, at 15:27, J. Landman Gay wrote: > One reason you

Re: Cocoa

I have no doubt that RunRev do intend fulfilling the goals. But what exactly is the goal of the Cocoa Port? What does it entail? Where is it detailed? A valid question I think. All the best Terry On 9 Mar 2014, at 15:11, Shawn Blc wrote: > If you think the RunRev staff aren't interested i

Re: Cocoa

One reason you haven't got an answer is because you asked after close of business on a weekend. Another reason is that RR doesn't often read this user-supported list. But their progress on the Cocoa port isn't a secret and if I remember right, is open to public view on github. I don't have th

Re: Cocoa

If you think the RunRev staff aren't interested in full-filling the KS campaign goals, then take a look at the latest newsletter. http://newsletters.livecode.com/march/issue167/ According to Kevin: *Surprises to come?* All these statistics are particularly impressive when you consider the many y

Re: Cocoa

I can’t make a decision on whether or not it is wasted because RunRev have not made a statement on what a port to Cocoa is? Even though they are working on it they do not seem to want to expose their intentions. Why? RunRev, not me, said they would port LC to Cocoa. I would just like to use it

Re: Cocoa

On 09/03/14 15:52, Terence Heaford wrote: If this is the case I do not consider LC as being ported to Cocoa and consider my minimal contribution to the Kickstarter campaign as wasted. That strikes me as a bit odd. We all have our pet hates, pet likes and pet improvements we would like t

Re: Cocoa

If nobody knows then perhaps RunRev will post to let everyone know their intentions. So, to ask specific but not exhaustive questions and in no particular order. 1. Will native Cocoa controls replace the LC emulated versions? 2. Will NSTableView be available as a LC Control? 3. I presume event

Re: Cocoa

I will add: will it be possible to use the Cocoa APIs is Livecode externals? I have been waiting for this for years. François Le 8 mars 2014 à 23:18, Terence Heaford a écrit : > Can someone point me to a full definition of what RunRev consider "Port > LiveCode to use Cocoa throughout". > > Wha

Re: Cocoa - Kickstarter goal

I think the plan here with cocoa is to abstract the platform specific code and controls being used and rendered for each platform. Also, I know almost nothing about apple but it seems mac is rapidly depreciating carbon in their newer products. I do believe for current and past mac incarnations, abs

Re: Cocoa - Kickstarter goal

There are a lot of things you can't do without Carbon. Will all of the BSD API go away? So, what does this mean in implementation? Dar On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > Klaus- > > Wednesday, June 19, 2013, 12:37:56 PM, you wrote: > >> it's number two :-) > > But it's more

Re: Cocoa - Kickstarter goal

Klaus- Wednesday, June 19, 2013, 12:37:56 PM, you wrote: > it's number two :-) But it's more than that as well. It leads the way to 64-bit OSX builds and it means, now that Carbon has been deprecated, that we'll still be able to build for OSX once Apple pulls the plug. And maybe we'll even be ab

Re: Cocoa - Kickstarter goal

Hi Dar, Am 19.06.2013 um 21:27 schrieb Dar Scott : > What is this about? > > Is this about getting the engine implementation to use some sort of cross > platform Cocoa? > > Or is this really about using Apple Human Interface Guidelines on appropriate > platforms? > > I'm missing why is is a

Re: Cocoa - Kickstarter goal

What is this about? Is this about getting the engine implementation to use some sort of cross platform Cocoa? Or is this really about using Apple Human Interface Guidelines on appropriate platforms? I'm missing why is is a big deal. (I'm probably missing a lot, but that is what comes to mind

Re: Cocoa - Kickstarter goal

I meant cocoa, not carbon. Andrew On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Andrew Kluthe wrote: > Are you talking about the blog post on livecode.com that was released > today or an update on the kickstarter page? > > I didn't see any mention of that getting bumped down in priority in the > blog post.

Re: Cocoa - Kickstarter goal

Are you talking about the blog post on livecode.com that was released today or an update on the kickstarter page? I didn't see any mention of that getting bumped down in priority in the blog post. I believe it was always slated to be expected "sometime after the refactoring project". With the refa