----- Original Message -----
From: P Witte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Plight of a Software House
>
> George Gwilt writes:
> >
> > I have had some useful feedback from Geoff Wicks but from few others (if
> > any!). Anyone who has suggestions that can be implemented will probably
> find
> > these incorporated in an update.
Nice to hear that George appreciated my comments, and I can certainly
testify from the experience that George listens to feedback and tries to
incorporate your ideas in his work.
At the time I did not feel that I was a particularly good QPTR tester as too
many other things, including Just Words! development came in the way. This
is all part of the problem. Most QL users are busy with their day jobs and
other things and there is little time to give others feedback. (This also
happens in the none QL world.) After a busy work period I am trying to catch
up with a Just Words! backlog to get a new program out by the end of the
month, and that means that a reply to an email from Al Boehm about pincodes
and investigating possible QTYP bugs with Dietrich Buder get further
delayed. I still have to look at a suggestion for Style-Check that Roy Wood
emailed me over a year ago!
> > Will this lead to a flood of new ideas?
I find the best way to come up with new ideas is to get people talking at
shows. Spelling-Crib was conceived in this way, as were a lot of changes to
QL-2-PC Transfer. I am hoping to release another new product in the Autumn
that from conversations at shows I think may interest some people. (However
I am seriously behind schedule on that product.)
I think we have to be realistic. We are unlikely to get any new major
applications unless we can find some benefactor who would fund a programmer
to write them. However less ambitious products are still possible and
viable. With some products, such as QL-Rhymes, I say "If I sell ten I shall
be happy. If I sell twenty I shall be ecstatic." (And I am very near to
being happy. Ecstacy must wait!)
Per wrote:
> I did have a look at TurboPTR in the early days. But the problem for me is
I
> dont get on with Turbo! It wont compile anything Ive written these last
ten
> years without a complete re-design, which is why I gave it up in the first
> place.
>
> I think it is great that you have taken on Turbo development. I download
> every new version to keep an eye on how things are moving. A lot has been
> achieved already. Its also the only S*Basic compiler thats going anywhere.
> By writing TurboPTR you have made possible using Turbo in modern programs
> and applications.
>
> For me personally, Ive had to make a choice and that choice is (at
present)
> QLib/EasyPTR. I very much hope though that there are enough others out
there
> to support you - practially, or at the very least by letting you know that
> they do! For now, all I can offer is my appreciation.
>
This is similar to my experience. I spent a lot of time designing a house
style for Just Words! and that would not be easy to transfer to Turbo. My
main quibble with Turbo is that you cannot build machine code routines into
a program in the way that is possible using REM $$asmb in Q-Liberator.
QLib/EasyPTR allows you to make some professional looking programs. It's
just a pity that the latter is such a b*gg*r to learn. TurboPTR is worth
looking at as an alternative.
Geoff Wicks
