On 30/06/2016 20:25, Richard Gaskin wrote:
But while it's easy to write a sentence or two of things describing others to
do, it's not quite as easy to actually do the work.
Very true! And I realised after I sent my last email that I was sounding like
one of those people....
But:
While:
I'm very excited about widgets;
and backed both the original infinite-livceode;
and the native field extension;
Yet:
I think there is a bit of a danger that concentrating
on the new babies is leaving the older sibling neglected and
disgruntled... and looking ugly.
I still remember the thrill some 15 years ago of building an app on Mac, and
seeing it 'just work' first time on Windows (albeit some tweaking needed).
But in relation to mobile, for me the real value of LiveCode is not the
one-time saving on remaking the interface for another platform - but the
ongoing efficiency of continuous development on desktop, versus the
conventional edit-compile-test cycle.
That's why I think "it would be better if" the existing basic controls worked
reasonably well on mobile platforms, and the existence of the various
libraries, widgets, and mobileControlxxx functions - while all of them being
extremely valuable - does not, for me, negate that ambition.
In my ideal future there would be no more "mobileXXX" terms in the dictionary;
just as most of the "iphoneXXX" terms were generalised to be "mobileXXX", my
dream would be for as many as possible of the 'mobileXXX' terms to be
generalised (and/or merged with the existing 'desktop' functions) to work on
any platform, so that the developer could use a single set of functions to
compose and send an email (with functions to tell me if it's available on the
current platform); to access location and heading information, accelerometer,
built in camera (again with functions to tell me which features are
available). After all most 'desktops' are now laptops, many of which have
cameras, accelerometers, various density screens, idle timers, etc...
In this respect I was delighted when sockets were implemented on mobile, that
this was done as a peaceful extension of the existing functions, rather than
as a new 'mobileSocketxxx" suite. Grateful though I am for Monte's fabulous
work: I had a utility developed and debugged and used on the desktop, which I
simply couldn't face recoding using mergSocket, so I just waited. When the day
came I simply checked the box to build for iOS, selected my phone and hit
"test" - and it worked, first time, on my phone! That was a fabulous win for
LiveCode.
I'm really hoping (though I'm not clear if this is true or not) that the
Native Field Object is not implemented as another new widget but as a new
presentation of the LiveCode field object. A new widget would obviously be
better than the using the mobileControlxxx functions (themselves a welcome
addition); but even better if we can drag a field onto a stack, and have it
work appropriately and according to expectation on all platforms.
Of course, to return to your point above: t say "even better if" is not to
deny the amount of work that may be involved, or pre-judge the priorities.
Best regards,
Ben
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
