Thank you for a very clear explanation which improved the taste of my
breakfast no end.
Although . . . it still doesn't quite explain why we need LCB to do some
"heavy lifting": why can LC
not be extended to encompass that?
Richmond.
On 1/3/17 11:40 pm, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 1/3/17 1:54 PM, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
I wonder how many programmers are going to spend their money on LiveCode
if they are aware that at a certain point they are going to have to
leverage one or more other programming languages to achieve
certain things.
No one needs to learn any other language. Since the LC team
understands that most users don't want to learn lower-level languages
like C++, they've provided an intermediate language -- LCB -- that
meets the requirement halfway. For those who know or don't mind
learning C or its variants, they can tap directly into OS frameworks
to achieve even more.
None of this means that you yourself need to actually write those
things, or that the capabilities of LC have somehow diminished. It
isn't any different than writing externals, which have been around
forever and which we use with abandon without understanding a single
line of the underlying code.
_______________________________________________
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
