On 8/8/03 1:23 pm, Robert Brenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well said, John. I am actually in both shoes. I produce standalones
> that do not need the dynamic scripting or function fine with the
> current limits, but I would love to use MC/Rev for dynamic scripting
> as well. Except that 10-l
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 22:31, Dr. John R. Vokey wrote:
> Thus,
> rather being an essential part of metacard/RR, this dynamism becomes a
> feature *only* licensed users (developers?) can use, but can't retain
> in the stacks they produce.
> for some, at least me, it is the dynamism that is
On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 04:31 PM, Dr. John R. Vokey wrote:
For those who remember them, think of the completely different
experience one has programming in and using TILs (threaded
interpretative languages) such as APL, and forth: as with hypercard,
programming is not distinct from usin
This is missing the point. The principle advantage of metacard/RR
is that it provides for dynamic programming *and* it does so in a
cross-platform way. I have and use c, c++ compilers, Futurebasic,
RealBasic, and so on, but for different purposes. None of these
other programming environments
On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 04:31 PM, Dr. John R. Vokey wrote:
Thus, rather being an essential part of metacard/RR, this dynamism
becomes a feature *only* licensed users (developers?) can use, but
can't retain in the stacks they produce. By all means, strip it out
of standalones if need be
On Thursday, August 7, 2003 Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote:
I don't understand what you mean by this. Your extensible stacks are
your
products. ("Product" does not mean "commercial product", nor is it
restricted to standalone applications.) It sounds from your description
like your products would in f
