Re: How Rapid Application Development Helps the US Navy

[Kay C Lan]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Richmond 
wrote:

>
> Although one thing that slightly annoyed me is that it could give many
> people
> the impression that LiveCode is ONLY fit for rapid prototyping, and that,
> having prototyped
> something the "real deal" has to be constructed in something else.
>

OK you're the English expert and I basically failed it, but I don't know
how you could possibly come to that conclusion. I read one paragraph that
said GDIT 'normally' used LC as a RAD tool but then noted that it had
recently made several one-off LC standalone apps. The rest of the article
went on the basically describe one of these LC apps - MSAT and included the
shocker that the whole thing was constructed "without a single line of code
written by a software engineer".

The article says to me; If you need a mission critical life vs death piece
of battle proof software and you need it fast, then prototype it in LC and
build it something else. But, if you only need to simulate the overall
dynamics of a massive naval battle anywhere around the globe, in real time,
quicktime, or replay time, then LC can do that for you, no problem.
___
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

Re: How Rapid Application Development Helps the US Navy

[Mark Waddingham]

On 2015-09-30 09:42, Kay C Lan wrote:

Although one thing that slightly annoyed me is that it could give many
people
the impression that LiveCode is ONLY fit for rapid prototyping, and 
that,

having prototyped
something the "real deal" has to be constructed in something else.


I must confess that there is potentially that take away from the 
article.


However, another way to look at it is - if the US Navy use it for rapid 
prototyping of substantial software systems then LiveCode must be quite 
capable.


OK you're the English expert and I basically failed it, but I don't 
know
how you could possibly come to that conclusion. I read one paragraph 
that

said GDIT 'normally' used LC as a RAD tool but then noted that it had
recently made several one-off LC standalone apps. The rest of the 
article
went on the basically describe one of these LC apps - MSAT and included 
the
shocker that the whole thing was constructed "without a single line of 
code

written by a software engineer".


I don't think this is too uncommon - people have often picked up 
LiveCode (and its predecessors) to prototype something and then realized 
they've actually built the app.


The article says to me; If you need a mission critical life vs death 
piece
of battle proof software and you need it fast, then prototype it in LC 
and

build it something else. But, if you only need to simulate the overall
dynamics of a massive naval battle anywhere around the globe, in real 
time,

quicktime, or replay time, then LC can do that for you, no problem.


I think Kay makes an extremely good point about something that isn't 
perhaps entirely obvious from the article.


There are many endeavours where certain practices, procedures and 
processes are mandated - you can only use tools in this instance which 
have got the relevant certifications. It is usually on the shoulders of 
said tool provider to ensure such certifications are met and maintained.


Defence related projects are be full of these. For example, for Apple to 
get the iPhone used in certain US governmental situations they have to 
get it 'FIPS certified'. This is long, lengthy and expensive process 
that ensures that all security features comply to very strict and high 
standards.


So, yes, in this instance I suspect LiveCode could not be used to 
produce the final system because it was not compliant to the various 
things that were mandated as part of the systems specification. However, 
by prototyping in LiveCode first they mananged to ensure they had the 
design of it right before the humungously expensive process of getting 
it implemented to the required standards - I think this is very positive 
outcome.


Of course, it would be nice if we could be used in all such situations 
from end to end; however, we have to pick our battles at the end of the 
day and I'm not sure we are quite big enough yet to enter certain 
spheres...


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
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

How Rapid Application Development Helps the US Navy

[Jana Doughty]

Hi All,

We have a great blog about Rapid Application Development and its role in
the US Navy.

Check it out:
https://livecode.com/how-rapid-application-development-helps-the-us-navy/

Thanks!

Jana


___
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

How Rapid Application Development Helps the US Navy

[Richmond]

This is very interesting indeed.

https://livecode.com/how-rapid-application-development-helps-the-us-navy/

Although one thing that slightly annoyed me is that it could give many 
people
the impression that LiveCode is ONLY fit for rapid prototyping, and 
that, having prototyped

something the "real deal" has to be constructed in something else.

While this may be true in areas for which LiveCode does not (yet ???) 
have the capabilities

or capacity, this is far from the truth all the time.

I do feel, that another article might follow this one to redress that 
impression.


Richmond.

___
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