Yes, cross-platform development requires an "extra effort" -- just as
putting a man on the moon requires an "extra effort" compared with
climbing a tree.
You are poorly informed, Doc. Condemning others based on what you've
been told is risky business. Some developers are used to this sort of
ignorance and let it roll off; others will put you on
their "clueless" list and treat you accordingly.
Until recently, cross-platform development forced a cruel tradeoff:
either limit the application to a least common denominator of
capabilities provided by the target platforms, or create an
architecture that encapsulates platform dependencies in modules with
multiple platform-specific implementations. As an example, the former
approach produces applications with command-line user interfaces --
easy to develop, test, and maintain, but of interest to few users in
this day and age. The latter approach requires a serious investment
in configuration management and version control, and produces
applications that must be independently documented and tested for
each family of target platforms. Adobe, for example, provides
entirely separate documentation for the Apple and PC versions of
PhotoShop, and tests them independently.
There are now development tools that begin to fulfill the "write
once, run everywhere" hype we heard from the Sun marketeers: Eclipse
and Mono are two good examples. Yes, I'm aware of Delphi/Kylix, but
Borland is roadkill and no competent developer would start a new
project with these products. A developer starting a new project would
be well-served to consider these new tools, though both involve
runtime environments not typically used in amateur radio desktop apps
(Eclipse primarily supports Java development, and Mono builds .net
applications).
Those amateur radio software developers with existing platform-
specific applications thus face a different tradeoff: continue
efficient development for a single platform, or suspend the release
of new functionality for months or years while re-implementing
current functionality with Eclipse or Mono. Each will make that
decision based on his or her own personal interests, and the
interests of their user communities. Cluelessness or sloth won't be a
factor.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am referring to your assertion that the impediment is
programmers
> > who are inadequately competent to make their apps cross-platform
> > compatible. Please explain the rationale behind this claim.
> > 73, Dave, AA6YQ
>
> Oh, that is easy.
>
> Three sources:
>
> 1. Programmers who have told me directly that
> they only know one OS, are not interested in
> learning any others, and refuse any requests
> to make their apps cross-platform compatible.
>
> 2. Programmers who have written cross-platform
> compatible apps who have told me of fellow
> programmers who fit category #1.
>
> 3. I know from my own very limited experiences
> in programming in the past -- I have forgotten
> more than I ever knew from disuse -- that it
> was an extra effort to provide for use outside
> of the most familiar context. Even my HTML is
> very primitive and I make little or no effort
> to provide for automated flexibility. I use
> raw hand-coded HTML and expect Web browsers to
> handle it correctly. I don't have enough knowledge,
> nor do I have the time to acquire it, to do more
> than that.
>
> --
>
> Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Projects: http://ham-macguyver.bibleseven.com
> Personal: http://bibleseven.com
> Note: Both down temporarily due to server change.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
