RE: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[John Tregea]

The MOST useful book (to me) by far in many years of commercial scripting
with HyperCard was Dan Shafer's book on HyperTalk Scripting. It got used
almost everyday for ten years or so. Additions to the language were always
available in the "What's New" section of the users guide for each new
version.

I still remember the book as the most outstanding written tool for the most
outstanding environment of its day.

Don't know if that can be repeated for RunRev?

Dan?...



>>>Do you know what kind of book would represent the docs?

>But it's difficult to compare books coming from a more than 20 years 
>company counting several thousands of "employees" and Runrev :-)
>May be one day?

Yes, I agree, but then this isn't as big as Apple/Mac. It's 
equivilent to say AppleScript, QuickTime and the FIle System. As I 
said, I reckon it could be split into somewhere between 5 and 10 
books.

>
>>It must be as hard or harder to maintain the online docs that 
>>seperate PDF files.
>
>The docs are stored into XML files (about 1740 for the dictionnary, 
>500 for the faq, etc.).
>Data are of course not in the stack. So maintenance should be appear
easy...
>Have a look in the components/help folder.
>
>>If they made say broke it down into (say) 7 books, it shouldn't be 
>>so hard to do. And as long as the latest updates were available 
>>online. I am not necessarily talking about a printed books 
>>(although that woukd be nice!), downloadable PDFs would be just 
>>great.
>>
>>For instance, for RunRev Version 3, wouldn't it be nice is the 
>>books for it came out way ahead of any code being produced. The 
>>docs could then be proof read by people on this list and as many 
>>errors etc. fixed.


>
>This would mean that you should have to be a beta tester too: don't 
>you have enough issues with released versions?
>If I understand correctly :-)

That would be a good thing! Beta testing is just fine, yes the 
"Bible" should go through a similar process too.

I'm not sure what you mean biut issues with released versions? The 
only thing I have problems with is new features being added when bugs 
that have been there for a long time are not fixed.
>
>>This would become the bible and could not be changed without RFCs 
>>like the internet committee.
>>
>>The implementation would then come from this bible and anything 
>>that differed from the bible would be considered a bug and fixed, 
>>unless an RFC is raised and passed.
>>
>>Of course this could/would mean that creativity is stifled in terms 
>>of adding new features, however this need not be the case. As long 
>>as the Standard RunRev 3 "Bible" was left as defined, there could 
>>be extensions that added to the language, similar to the way in 
>>which #pragma's work in C/C++, adding to the standard , but never 
>>actually taking the "standard" away.
>>
>>Eventually these extensions would either die out or be adopted back 
>>in the standard on the next major revision.
>>
>>I really do think that something like this just has to be done if 
>>RunRev is to really make it into the mainstream.
>
>Something like that will happen for sure but needs a bigger 
>community first: so, stay with us :-)

Well, to me this is a chicken and egg situation, it can't get bigger 
til the above is done and that can't be done til it gets bigger.

What it needs is some investment! How much do people on the list 
think it would take in terms of money to put this into place? I'd be 
happy to cough up $100 or so if I thought the above would be done. 
This would be credited back to to those who contribute in terms of 
free updates to the docs and (maybe) free renewal of license fees.

(I've already spent far more than that in terms of wasted time!)

Anything just to move this forward, it's been hanging around in the 
slow lane for too long. If something isn't done soon a similar tool 
will come along and wipe it out.

I know some (if not most) of you on this list have had past 
experience with MC and it's kin, but I haven't and to be honest I 
have no loyalty in terms of history to motivate me (unlike say Apple 
or the Mac Plaftform), if something like rev came along, even if it 
only had 75% of what RunRev has now but all the above was 
implemented, I'd jump boat. Since I would really have more to put my 
faith in, in terms of getting to a mainstream product.

Having said that, I suppose I do have *some* loyality to RunRev Ltd., 
since I admire (mostly) what they have acheived so far. I have also 
worked a founder member of a number of companies and know all about 
the growing pains and not wanting to let go of the "baby". However, 
unless this product is allowed to become an adult, it's gonna be 
hanging round in pool rooms til time for retirement!!!

All the Best
Dave
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/u

RE: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[John Tregea]

I think AppleScript (and CyberDog) was/were Apple's end result when they
looked for a way to implement "system wide" hypertalk.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Shafer
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:02 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

There was at one point inside Apple a very serious discussion about  
adding a TCP stack to HyperCard and stuffing it into the ROM. This  
was a year or more before the Internet exploded. The guy who promoted  
the idea got show down by Jean-Louis Gassee and left the company.  
Just imagine


On Nov 28, 2005, at 12:13 AM, Dom wrote:

> wonder why Apple didn't make Hypertalk system-wide
> (apart reinventing the wheel...)



~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
 From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Scott Rossi]

Recently, David Burgun wrote:

> It must be as hard or harder to maintain the online docs that
> seperate PDF files.
> 
> If they made say broke it down into (say) 7 books, it shouldn't be so
> hard to do. And as long as the latest updates were available online.
> I am not necessarily talking about a printed books (although that
> woukd be nice!), downloadable PDFs would be just great.

Hi David:

There is a group that discusses the Rev documentation at the following
address:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RevDocs/

You might want to air your suggestions there.

Regards,

Scott Rossi
Creative Director
Tactile Media, Multimedia & Design
-
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W: http://www.tactilemedia.com

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[David Burgun]

Hi Dave,

Le 30 nov. 05 à 16:14, David Burgun a écrit :


Hi Dave,

Do you know what kind of book would represent the docs?
In front of me are 2 A4 books (I need my glasses to read them :-)
which were sent to me by Runrev with Rev Enterprise 2.0.
The first one (User Guide) is 370 pages and the other (Transcript
Language Reference) is 570 pages...
I think that maintaining the docs is a hard work: you could have
some good surprise with the Rev next version :-)


Have you seen the Apple Inside Mac Books?


In front of me too :-)
But it's difficult to compare books coming from a more than 20 years
company counting several thousands of "employees" and Runrev :-)
May be one day?


Yes, I agree, but then this isn't as big as Apple/Mac. It's
equivilent to say AppleScript, QuickTime and the FIle System. As I
said, I reckon it could be split into somewhere between 5 and 10
books.




It must be as hard or harder to maintain the online docs that
seperate PDF files.


The docs are stored into XML files (about 1740 for the dictionnary,
500 for the faq, etc.).
Data are of course not in the stack. So maintenance should be appear easy...
Have a look in the components/help folder.


If they made say broke it down into (say) 7 books, it shouldn't be
so hard to do. And as long as the latest updates were available
online. I am not necessarily talking about a printed books
(although that woukd be nice!), downloadable PDFs would be just
great.

For instance, for RunRev Version 3, wouldn't it be nice is the
books for it came out way ahead of any code being produced. The
docs could then be proof read by people on this list and as many
errors etc. fixed.





This would mean that you should have to be a beta tester too: don't
you have enough issues with released versions?
If I understand correctly :-)


That would be a good thing! Beta testing is just fine, yes the
"Bible" should go through a similar process too.

I'm not sure what you mean biut issues with released versions? The
only thing I have problems with is new features being added when bugs
that have been there for a long time are not fixed.



This would become the bible and could not be changed without RFCs
like the internet committee.

The implementation would then come from this bible and anything
that differed from the bible would be considered a bug and fixed,
unless an RFC is raised and passed.

Of course this could/would mean that creativity is stifled in terms
of adding new features, however this need not be the case. As long
as the Standard RunRev 3 "Bible" was left as defined, there could
be extensions that added to the language, similar to the way in
which #pragma's work in C/C++, adding to the standard , but never
actually taking the "standard" away.

Eventually these extensions would either die out or be adopted back
in the standard on the next major revision.

I really do think that something like this just has to be done if
RunRev is to really make it into the mainstream.


Something like that will happen for sure but needs a bigger
community first: so, stay with us :-)


Well, to me this is a chicken and egg situation, it can't get bigger
til the above is done and that can't be done til it gets bigger.

What it needs is some investment! How much do people on the list
think it would take in terms of money to put this into place? I'd be
happy to cough up $100 or so if I thought the above would be done.
This would be credited back to to those who contribute in terms of
free updates to the docs and (maybe) free renewal of license fees.

(I've already spent far more than that in terms of wasted time!)

Anything just to move this forward, it's been hanging around in the
slow lane for too long. If something isn't done soon a similar tool
will come along and wipe it out.

I know some (if not most) of you on this list have had past
experience with MC and it's kin, but I haven't and to be honest I
have no loyalty in terms of history to motivate me (unlike say Apple
or the Mac Plaftform), if something like rev came along, even if it
only had 75% of what RunRev has now but all the above was
implemented, I'd jump boat. Since I would really have more to put my
faith in, in terms of getting to a mainstream product.

Having said that, I suppose I do have *some* loyality to RunRev Ltd.,
since I admire (mostly) what they have acheived so far. I have also
worked a founder member of a number of companies and know all about
the growing pains and not wanting to let go of the "baby". However,
unless this product is allowed to become an adult, it's gonna be
hanging round in pool rooms til time for retirement!!!

All the Best
Dave
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Eric Chatonet]

Hi Dave,

Le 30 nov. 05 à 16:14, David Burgun a écrit :


Hi Dave,

Do you know what kind of book would represent the docs?
In front of me are 2 A4 books (I need my glasses to read them :-)  
which were sent to me by Runrev with Rev Enterprise 2.0.
The first one (User Guide) is 370 pages and the other (Transcript  
Language Reference) is 570 pages...
I think that maintaining the docs is a hard work: you could have  
some good surprise with the Rev next version :-)


Have you seen the Apple Inside Mac Books?


In front of me too :-)
But it's difficult to compare books coming from a more than 20 years  
company counting several thousands of "employees" and Runrev :-)

May be one day?

It must be as hard or harder to maintain the online docs that  
seperate PDF files.


The docs are stored into XML files (about 1740 for the dictionnary,  
500 for the faq, etc.).
Data are of course not in the stack. So maintenance should be appear  
easy...

Have a look in the components/help folder.

If they made say broke it down into (say) 7 books, it shouldn't be  
so hard to do. And as long as the latest updates were available  
online. I am not necessarily talking about a printed books  
(although that woukd be nice!), downloadable PDFs would be just great.


For instance, for RunRev Version 3, wouldn't it be nice is the  
books for it came out way ahead of any code being produced. The  
docs could then be proof read by people on this list and as many  
errors etc. fixed.


This would mean that you should have to be a beta tester too: don't  
you have enough issues with released versions?

If I understand correctly :-)

This would become the bible and could not be changed without RFCs  
like the internet committee.


The implementation would then come from this bible and anything  
that differed from the bible would be considered a bug and fixed,  
unless an RFC is raised and passed.


Of course this could/would mean that creativity is stifled in terms  
of adding new features, however this need not be the case. As long  
as the Standard RunRev 3 "Bible" was left as defined, there could  
be extensions that added to the language, similar to the way in  
which #pragma's work in C/C++, adding to the standard , but never  
actually taking the "standard" away.


Eventually these extensions would either die out or be adopted back  
in the standard on the next major revision.


I really do think that something like this just has to be done if  
RunRev is to really make it into the mainstream.


Something like that will happen for sure but needs a bigger community  
first: so, stay with us :-)


Best Regards from Paris,

Eric Chatonet.

So Smart Software

For institutions, companies and associations
Built-to-order applications: management, multimedia, internet, etc.
Windows, Mac OS and Linux... With the French touch

Free plugins and tutorials on my website

Web sitehttp://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
Phone33 (0)1 43 31 77 62
Mobile33 (0)6 20 74 50 86


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[David Burgun]

Hi Dave,

Do you know what kind of book would represent the docs?
In front of me are 2 A4 books (I need my glasses to read them :-) 
which were sent to me by Runrev with Rev Enterprise 2.0.
The first one (User Guide) is 370 pages and the other (Transcript 
Language Reference) is 570 pages...
I think that maintaining the docs is a hard work: you could have 
some good surprise with the Rev next version :-)


Have you seen the Apple Inside Mac Books?

It must be as hard or harder to maintain the online docs that 
seperate PDF files.


If they made say broke it down into (say) 7 books, it shouldn't be so 
hard to do. And as long as the latest updates were available online. 
I am not necessarily talking about a printed books (although that 
woukd be nice!), downloadable PDFs would be just great.


For instance, for RunRev Version 3, wouldn't it be nice is the books 
for it came out way ahead of any code being produced. The docs could 
then be proof read by people on this list and as many errors etc. 
fixed.


This would become the bible and could not be changed without RFCs 
like the internet committee.


The implementation would then come from this bible and anything that 
differed from the bible would be considered a bug and fixed, unless 
an RFC is raised and passed.


Of course this could/would mean that creativity is stifled in terms 
of adding new features, however this need not be the case. As long as 
the Standard RunRev 3 "Bible" was left as defined, there could be 
extensions that added to the language, similar to the way in which 
#pragma's work in C/C++, adding to the standard , but never actually 
taking the "standard" away.


Eventually these extensions would either die out or be adopted back 
in the standard on the next major revision.


I really do think that something like this just has to be done if 
RunRev is to really make it into the mainstream.


All the Best
Dave
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[David Burgun]

David Burgun wrote:


This is from the Answer command:

The prompt is a string (or any expression that evaluates to a 
string). The dialog box expands if necessary to fit the contents.


This just doesn't happen, in many cases it just gets chopped off. 
There are other instances, but I really can't be bothered to find 
them right now.




RunRev is different in this respect and many times no one seems to 
actually know what is *supposed* to happen and I get a number of 
work arounds to a problem (from this list mainly) that may or may 
not work in all situations.


The thing is that in the case of the answer dialog it has been 
known about for a long time it seems. We have just had a new 
release of RunRev but the documentation was not changed. This is 
the problem, not that there are errors in the docs, just that they 
are not fixed or updated promptly either to make the code match the 
docs or the docs match the code.

David,

As I mentioned earlier, prior to 2.6 the dialog box *did* expand 
both it's width and height as it says in the docs. But for HIG 
compliance reasons, RR decided to limit the dialog box to expand a 
maximum fixed width and thus introduced the bug you have discovered. 
In fact the basic dialog box still does expand it's height to fit 
the contents (up to a point, then it creates a scrolling field), so 
the docs are correct in that instance.


Simply applying my patch will fix the problem you encountered. I'm 
sure the patch will be included in the next rev of Rev.



Ok, I understand the reasons why it happened and I have your patch 
and I do hope that it is rolled into the next release.


BTW, Thanks for doing that patch! It was really good of you, this one 
of the really great things about RunRev, the abilty to patch like 
that!




I'm sorry it's so frustrating for you. Come to think of it, it was 
somewhat frustrating for me a few years back when I started. I spent 
a lot of time reading the list archives, and purchased all the docs 
available and read them. Still, it _was easier_ than learning ASP, 
ADO, SQL, ODBC, VBscript, PHP, stored procedures, Javascript, DHTML 
and the host of other technologies one has to wade through to just 
put up a simple web app.


This one really was frustrating to be honest, I placed the answer 
dialogs to find a bug and the Answer problem just threw me!


The other problem is that I had another problem with a bogus group 
causing the menuBar to stop working, since this was the same Stack, 
you can't help thinking that the problem *might* be caused by 
something bogus in the stack. Then you waste time looking for that!


Anyway, all resolved now!

And I totally agree RunRev is much easier to learn than the languages 
you mention above!


All the Best
Dave
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Eric Chatonet]

Hi Dave,

Do you know what kind of book would represent the docs?
In front of me are 2 A4 books (I need my glasses to read them :-)  
which were sent to me by Runrev with Rev Enterprise 2.0.
The first one (User Guide) is 370 pages and the other (Transcript  
Language Reference) is 570 pages...
I think that maintaining the docs is a hard work: you could have some  
good surprise with the Rev next version :-)


Le 30 nov. 05 à 14:48, David Burgun a écrit :

There are quite a few instances that I have found  in the docs that  
are factually incorrect. This can happen I agree as with anything  
human. The thing is that in the case of the answer dialog it has  
been known about for a long time it seems. We have just had a new  
release of RunRev but the documentation was not changed. This is  
the problem, not that there are errors in the docs, just that they  
are not fixed or updated promptly either to make the code match the  
docs or the docs match the code.



Best Regards from Paris,

Eric Chatonet.

So Smart Software

For institutions, companies and associations
Built-to-order applications: management, multimedia, internet, etc.
Windows, Mac OS and Linux... With the French touch

Free plugins and tutorials on my website

Web sitehttp://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
Phone33 (0)1 43 31 77 62
Mobile33 (0)6 20 74 50 86


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Mathewson]

I am not so psychologically naive to believe that everybody
will learn xTalk the way I did - and will not have the
luxury of very well paid half-time jobs so that they have
the time to devote to learning it the way I have done.

It is indeed true that the RR documentation is not
comparable with all the books on the market for (say)
flipping Visual Basic (for 'flipping' insert your favourite
B-word). Arguably some programming RADs are almost
over-documented.

An erstwhile employer bought me the printed version of the
RR 1.1.1 documentation - before either he or I had realised
that it was JUST a printout of the online docs. 

Maybe I am the one that is naive - but when I was in
Illinois and unpacked my Mac LC III from Montgomery Ward is
contained Hypercard (and no manual) and I just dived on in
and got on with it: after all, it was such a breathe of
fresh air after all those command-line fossils - and the
GUI - well . . .  It seemed at the time (and, I suppose it
should still) that the underlying ZEITGEIST of Hypercard
(read RR/MC) was that a manual should not be necessary.

If somebody really feels a desperate urge (oh, dear) for an
entry-level book and is prepared to sponsor me to the tune
of some appropriate figure for a year I could probably
"knock one together". However, "knock one together" is
exactly what I would do (maybe I shouldn't give away trade
secrets ???) by plundering Danny Goodman's Hypercard book,
the RR online documentation and a fairly goofy 'Intro to
VB' book I, unfortunately was required to buy as part of my
joke MSc course. The other limiting factor about any
'text-book' I wrote on RR/MC would be that it would,
obviously, reflect my approach to programming, which might
not be to very many people's tastes.

Don't all rush at once to pay me good money for a patchwork
quilt!

I have not seen Dan Shafer's book; but if his sense of
humour is anything to go on I would try that one first.

I would also suggest that any would-be users of RR go round
to their local library (in English-speaking countries) and
borrow Goodman's book - a bit over-prolix for my taste -
but good for dipping into and getting the feel of what
Hypercard WAS, and what RR is MORE THAN.

Ultimately my feeling is that RR/MC is now something that
has 2 levels: 

1. the heir of Hypercard: an approachable, Object-based RAD
for the 'Home and Teacher' crowd.

2. a sophisticated programming language that is in the
process of getting a long way away from Hypercard.

If this is true (waiting for feedback, abuse, so on - Take
the Hint) there certainly is a need for an in-depth book
for #2 - and, just possibly, a 'Content Delivery and
Reinforcement Programming' book for #1. I, personally have
my doubts about whether #1 would sell.

sincerely, Richmond


__
See Mathewson's software at:

http://members.maclaunch.com/richmond/default.html
___
---
The Think Different Store
http://www.thinkdifferentstore.com/
For All Your Mac Gear
---
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Chipp Walters]

David Burgun wrote:


This is from the Answer command:

The prompt is a string (or any expression that evaluates to a string). 
The dialog box expands if necessary to fit the contents.


This just doesn't happen, in many cases it just gets chopped off. There 
are other instances, but I really can't be bothered to find them right now.




RunRev is different in this respect and many times no one seems to 
actually know what is *supposed* to happen and I get a number of work 
arounds to a problem (from this list mainly) that may or may not work in 
all situations.


The 
thing is that in the case of the answer dialog it has been known about 
for a long time it seems. We have just had a new release of RunRev but 
the documentation was not changed. This is the problem, not that there 
are errors in the docs, just that they are not fixed or updated promptly 
either to make the code match the docs or the docs match the code.


David,

As I mentioned earlier, prior to 2.6 the dialog box *did* expand both 
it's width and height as it says in the docs. But for HIG compliance 
reasons, RR decided to limit the dialog box to expand a maximum fixed 
width and thus introduced the bug you have discovered. In fact the basic 
dialog box still does expand it's height to fit the contents (up to a 
point, then it creates a scrolling field), so the docs are correct in 
that instance.


Simply applying my patch will fix the problem you encountered. I'm sure 
the patch will be included in the next rev of Rev.


I'm sorry it's so frustrating for you. Come to think of it, it was 
somewhat frustrating for me a few years back when I started. I spent a 
lot of time reading the list archives, and purchased all the docs 
available and read them. Still, it _was easier_ than learning ASP, ADO, 
SQL, ODBC, VBscript, PHP, stored procedures, Javascript, DHTML and the 
host of other technologies one has to wade through to just put up a 
simple web app.


-Chipp

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Jerry Muelver]

From: "David Burgun"

RunRev is different in this respect and many times no one seems to 
actually know what is *supposed* to happen and I get a number of work 
arounds to a problem (from this list mainly) that may or may not work in 
all situations.


Wiki?

Dump the online docs into wiki pages, allow corrections/annotations to 
accumulate, integrate revisions for next release of docs.


Wiki access could be through registered DreamCard or Revolution IDE, 
simplifying the "qualified editor" screening process and eliminating the 
wiki-link spammers and graffiti artists.


 Jerry Muelver
 "Wiki" is the answer. What was the question, again? 


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[David Burgun]

David Burgun wrote:

I learnt Hypercard without a book,
and I extended my knowledge, as RR extended xTalk, in the
same way:

by doing!


That's great if you have all the time in the world to "doing" it 
wrong many times! Especially when the documentaion is just plain 
wrong!


As with the spelling of "documentation" in that sentence, human 
error can creep into just about anything.


While there's always room to expand on the material that's there, I 
don't recall any recent issue you've raised here in which the 
documentation was "just plain wrong".


This is from the Answer command:

The prompt is a string (or any expression that evaluates to a 
string). The dialog box expands if necessary to fit the contents.


This just doesn't happen, in many cases it just gets chopped off. 
There are other instances, but I really can't be bothered to find 
them right now.


Actually I didn't particually mean RunRev in this case, I meant any 
system. The point I was making is that with other systems there is a 
"bible" you can refer to or many other sources of information that 
allow you to find the error, for instance, I have a book on C++ that 
is factually wrong, I hit that problem, I can look at a whole host of 
other C++ books or even the "White" book to see what is *supposed* to 
happen.



RunRev is different in this respect and many times no one seems to 
actually know what is *supposed* to happen and I get a number of work 
arounds to a problem (from this list mainly) that may or may not work 
in all situations.


I was also pointing out that the general pace of software development 
has changed over the past 25 years and that back then there was time 
for much more for Trial and Error than today.




Sure, some sections could be expanded to address a wider range of 
needs, and for the love of Koresh I'd love to see a new TOC.


A book or books like Inside Mac would be just fine as far I'm 
concerned, also a book like the K&R C book which defines what is 
*supposed* to happen would be good too. Something that is the LAW and 
if the implementation differs then it's the implementation that is 
wrong, not the documentation.


But factually incorrect?  I'm sure there are errors in there, but no 
more so than with any other documentation project of such scope, and 
none that I can recall as related to the issues you've raised here 
recently.


There are quite a few instances that I have found  in the docs that 
are factually incorrect. This can happen I agree as with anything 
human. The thing is that in the case of the answer dialog it has been 
known about for a long time it seems. We have just had a new release 
of RunRev but the documentation was not changed. This is the problem, 
not that there are errors in the docs, just that they are not fixed 
or updated promptly either to make the code match the docs or the 
docs match the code.




My Dairy of RunRev is a lot simpler!

Day One: This is just GREAT I Love it!

Week 3 - Why are there so many silly problems with it that spoil the 
experience?


Month 18 - Why are there so many silly problems with it that spoil 
the experience?



Take Care and All the Best
Dave
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Dan Shafer]

If you click on "Topics" and then type "How" into the Filter with: field,
you get a whole host of examples, most of which work right out of the box.

The problem is, these are really buried in the docs. They need to be
surfaced.

On 11/29/05, Kay C Lan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> If the documentation actually had examples that you could cut and paste
> into
> a stack, osmosis would take care of the rest, no more posts to the list
> asking something very basic. Amending the docs to include 'put' and a
> sensible variable name isn't that hard.
>
>
>
~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Kay C Lan]

On 11/30/05, Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> While there's always room to expand on the material that's there, I
> don't recall any recent issue you've raised here in which the
> documentation was "just plain wrong".
>
> Sure, some sections could be expanded to address a wider range of needs,
> and for the love of Koresh I'd love to see a new TOC.
>
> But factually incorrect?
>

>From my perspective I see two areas for improvement.

That all examples actually work!

Now before you come back and ask 'give an example', I would suggest that for
99% of newbie's if they cut and paste most functions into their stacks they
wont work. For you they will because you instictively prefix the statement
with 'put' and generally postfix it with a variable to store it so it
doesn't become lost in 'it'. In my short time on this list I've seen two
gentle pointers on how to deal with functions for newbies who can't get them
to work.

For the impatient, those who haven't found this list or do not have access
to it, and those who haven't mastered the dubugger, how much hair pulling do
you factor in before you think they'll conclude - too hard.

If the documentation actually had examples that you could cut and paste into
a stack, osmosis would take care of the rest, no more posts to the list
asking something very basic. Amending the docs to include 'put' and a
sensible variable name isn't that hard.

The other area is searching the documents. All the information is very very
good, but I, and I notice alot of others in their posts, sometimes have
trouble finding it. What really irks me is when I've found the information
and a day or two later I try to go back to it and I just can't find it. I
can't remember the search or filter pattern that was 'just right'. I notice
that you include a better TOC, which is just another way to search.

I also have a problem with the TOC, although it might be my set up because I
know Xavier reported that he wasn't suffering what I do, but if I open the
documentation, click on Topics so you have the TOC in the left field, then
click on one - in this case lets say 'Custom properties, and...' it takes
around 10 seconds !!! before the right field is built, and at no time does
the cursor change to busy - it just looks like nothing is happening. For
quite a long time I was too impatient (although 10sec is too long) and would
click off else where. How many others suffer this and do not actually get
into the docs because they're just too slow.

If I'm the only one with slow access to the doc's I'd love to know how to
fix it:-)
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Richard Gaskin]

David Burgun wrote:

I learnt Hypercard without a book,
and I extended my knowledge, as RR extended xTalk, in the
same way:

by doing!


That's great if you have all the time in the world to "doing" it wrong 
many times! Especially when the documentaion is just plain wrong!


As with the spelling of "documentation" in that sentence, human error 
can creep into just about anything.


While there's always room to expand on the material that's there, I 
don't recall any recent issue you've raised here in which the 
documentation was "just plain wrong".


Sure, some sections could be expanded to address a wider range of needs, 
and for the love of Koresh I'd love to see a new TOC.


But factually incorrect?  I'm sure there are errors in there, but no 
more so than with any other documentation project of such scope, and 
none that I can recall as related to the issues you've raised here recently.



A general note on learning styles:

When I first started with Rev I was made quite an arse of myself, 
ranting on the MetaCard (as it was called at the time) list about how 
everything that was different from what I already knew was wrong.  It's 
merely my good fortune that the archives of that old listserve are no 
longer available -- I was a real pain, chock full o' opinions about how 
this was crappy and that was nonsense and everything in between was just 
silly.


Fortunately Kevin Miller and Scott Raney are far more patient than I, 
and in each case they took the time to explain the "why" behind the 
issues I was having.


As I came to understand the "why" of the engine, I came to appreciate 
the thought that went into it.  Today my one of my few remaining gripes 
is that "destroyStack" is a needlessly alarming choice to describe a 
very useful and non-destructive property.  Just about everything else in 
the language ranges from "acceptable" to "pretty darn nifty" to me.


I've mentioned the tool to a number of friends over the years, and I've 
observed that most go through a learning curve similar to my own (though 
most are far more good natured about it ).  Transcript is a very 
different way of working, and while I feel it offers unique benefits I 
also recognize it takes a bit of time to grok its unusual nature.


In my experience as a user and a trainer, the learning curve often goes 
something like this:


  Day one:"What the hell is going on?  Why doesn't anything work
   like I expect?  I hate this damn thing."

  Two days:   "Omigawd, the potential is incredible! If only I knew
   how to use it all..."

  Two weeks:  "After reading the language guide and trying some
   things out, I'm able to do truly productive work."

  One month:  "Now I can do productive work efficiently."

  Three months: "With the flexibility of the language and the handy
   tools in Revolution, I'm seeing slightly greater
   productivity than in my formerly-favorite tool I'd
   used for years."

  Six months: "I love this thing."

  One year:   "I love this thing like no other."


Your mileage may vary; contents may settle during shipping.
But I'd be surprised if after a few more weeks with this thing you 
didn't have a moment when you sat back and thought to yourself, "This 
Rev thang is pretty cool."


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[simplsol]

Modern times, modern needs, modern tools.
It is 1990 not 1970...oops, it is not even 1990 anymore :-)
Paul Looney

-Original Message-
From: David Burgun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: How to use Revolution 
Sent: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:48:15 +
Subject: Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

  >I learnt Hypercard without a book, 
>and I extended my knowledge, as RR extended xTalk, in the 
>same way: 
> 
>by doing! 
 
 That's great if you have all the time in the world to "doing" it wrong 
many times! Especially when the documentaion is just plain wrong! 

 
> 
>Ludwig Wittgenstein said that too many people Philosophise 
>and not enough DO PHILOSOPHY. 
> 
>Now if we all DID Runtime Revolution: 
> 
>i.e. got in there, got our feet wet, realised that (despite 
>a few itches) it really is just about the best 
>cross-platform RAD out there, and used the built-in 
>documentation as well as we are able to . . . 
> 
>We would probably shut-up about the 'awful this and the 
>awful that'. 
> 
>Although I am a mere 43 (I have a feeling Dan Shafer is 
>older) I started computer programming with FORTRAN 4 in 
>1975 - then BASIC, then PASCAL, ZILOG . . . those who moan 
>(I don't mean the odd 'twitch') and continue to moan about 
>RR's documentation and "lack-of-ease-of-use" ought to try 
>programming with one of those horrible Hollerith card 
>punchers: 
> 
>http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/cards.html 
> 
>a stack of cards, 
 
 I did all that too. Started out working in Assembler on Minicomputers 
and IBM/ICL mainframes. 

 
 One difference was the number of customers you'd have for a given 
product. Most companies sold computers systems where the hardware was 
at least £10,000 and most likely more like £30,000. The system was also 
specified up front and the user paid extra for addition features from 
the base system. Today, we write general purpose software to be sold to 
a mass market, running of different hardware and operating systems. 

 
 Another difference is that the systems back then had about 10% of the 
complexity of the Mac/PC today. Also in those environments there were 
two areas you had there were seperate, e.g. the language, like 
Assember, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol, C etc. which had separate 
documentation similar to code warrior today. IOW, you can get any one 
of a 100 C/C++, Pascal or Fortran books. In this case there was a bible 
you could look to to see what was *supposed* to happen. 

 
 Also when you did find a problem, it was much easier to patch the OS 
or the Assembler/Compiler, and you could step into almost any part of 
the system on a machine code basis. The Debugger was usually in ROM 
which helped too, you couldn't corrupt it. 

 
 In the case of environments like RunRev, it's an all in one solution 
and there isn't a bible or a host of other places you can look to see 
what is *supposed* to happen. You are relient on the documentation that 
comes with the system, and since the IDE is part of that same system 
you are developing, the problems are much more complex. 

 
>a Fortran Manual (remember all that stuff about 
>formatting?), 
> 
>and the 2-3 week wait while your cards sat in a queue at 
>one of the few Universities that offered a public service. 
 
 The difference was you were not trying to make a living out of it, 
and, even if you were, the market was FAR less competitive and the 
application FAR less complex. 

 
All the Best 
Dave 
___ 
use-revolution mailing list 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences: 

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution 

   
___

use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[David Burgun]

I learnt Hypercard without a book,
and I extended my knowledge, as RR extended xTalk, in the
same way:

by doing!


That's great if you have all the time in the world to "doing" it
wrong many times! Especially when the documentaion is just plain
wrong!



Ludwig Wittgenstein said that too many people Philosophise
and not enough DO PHILOSOPHY.

Now if we all DID Runtime Revolution:

i.e. got in there, got our feet wet, realised that (despite
a few itches) it really is just about the best
cross-platform RAD out there, and used the built-in
documentation as well as we are able to . . .

We would probably shut-up about the 'awful this and the
awful that'.

Although I am a mere 43 (I have a feeling Dan Shafer is
older) I started computer programming with FORTRAN 4 in
1975 - then BASIC, then PASCAL, ZILOG . . . those who moan
(I don't mean the odd 'twitch') and continue to moan about
RR's documentation and "lack-of-ease-of-use" ought to try
programming with one of those horrible Hollerith card
punchers:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/cards.html

a stack of cards,


I did all that too. Started out working in Assembler on Minicomputers
and IBM/ICL mainframes.

One difference was the number of customers you'd have for a given
product. Most companies sold computers systems where the hardware was
at least £10,000 and most likely more like £30,000. The system was
also specified up front and the user paid extra for addition features
from the base system. Today, we write general purpose software to be
sold to a mass market, running of different hardware and operating
systems.

Another difference is that the systems back then had about 10% of the
complexity of the Mac/PC today. Also in those environments there were
two areas you had there were seperate, e.g. the language, like
Assember, Pascal, Fortran, Cobol, C etc. which had separate
documentation similar to code warrior today. IOW, you can get any one
of a 100 C/C++, Pascal or Fortran books. In this case there was a
bible you could look to to see what was *supposed* to happen.

Also when you did find a problem, it was much easier to patch the OS
or the Assembler/Compiler, and you could step into almost any part of
the system on a machine code basis. The Debugger was usually in ROM
which helped too, you couldn't corrupt it.

In the case of environments like RunRev, it's an all in one solution
and there isn't a bible or a host of other places you can look to see
what is *supposed* to happen. You are relient on the documentation
that comes with the system, and since the IDE is part of that same
system you are developing, the problems are much more complex.


a Fortran Manual (remember all that stuff about
formatting?),

and the 2-3 week wait while your cards sat in a queue at
one of the few Universities that offered a public service.


The difference was you were not trying to make a living out of it,
and, even if you were, the market was FAR less competitive and the
application FAR less complex.

All the Best
Dave
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Jan Schenkel]

--- jbv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> Ok that's fine... but still I'm wondering : what (if
> anything) makes
> Transcript different from other languages (beside
> its "almost" plain
> english syntax ?
> Doesn't it feature variables, loops, if-then-else
> structures, arrays,
> functions, etc. just like so many other languages ?
> 
> so what makes it so attractive and loveable ?
> 

While I've used a dozen programming languages, I
really like xTalk because of its sheer productivity:
it gives you many of the advantages of object-oriented
programming (the message path, as Chipp suggested, and
the handlers and properties, packaged in its
English-like object-based syntax), but without the
hassles of having to setting up a class hierarchy,
writing numerous subclasses and trying to make them
all work together even if you start moving parts
around.

With Rev you can do your project in whatever sequence
you want: design the UI, add the scripts, build script
libraries. And constantly test it without having to go
through a compile-link-start-debug cycle. Few
developer tools offer you cross-platform deployment
for MacOS, Windows and Linux without platform-checks
sprinkled throughout your code.

And the tools that offer something 'close' to what Rev
offers, either don't have all the features we take for
granted, or are far more cumbersome to use and build
the little tool that takes you just an hour or two in
Rev. Whenever I get a chance, I'll quickly toss
something together at my day job, where we use
Progress, and my colleagues are quite impressed
(except for the Delphi-lover who regards it as a toy
and always claims he can do better in just about the
same time -- sre)

Granted, there are a few things that Rev could add to
give us an even greater edge over our competitors, but
I think the RunRev crew are aware of those items and
working hard to code them. And I can't wait to get my
grubby little paws on those new killer versions...

Jan Schenkel.

Quartam - Tools for Revolution


=
"As we grow older, we grow both wiser and more foolish at the same time."  (La 
Rochefoucauld)



__ 
Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. 
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Dan Shafer]

There was at one point inside Apple a very serious discussion about  
adding a TCP stack to HyperCard and stuffing it into the ROM. This  
was a year or more before the Internet exploded. The guy who promoted  
the idea got show down by Jean-Louis Gassee and left the company.  
Just imagine



On Nov 28, 2005, at 12:13 AM, Dom wrote:


wonder why Apple didn't make Hypertalk system-wide
(apart reinventing the wheel...)




~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Dom]

Dennis Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Another thing that makes it different (part of the depth and  
> complexity) is the type-less nature of containers. 

Unlike AppleScript ;->

always baffled by type problems in AppleScript...

wonder why Apple didn't make Hypertalk system-wide
(apart reinventing the wheel...)

-- 
Revolutionario

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Ken Norris]

Hi JB,


Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:47:37 +0100
From: jbv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

Ok that's fine... but still I'm wondering : what (if anything) makes
Transcript different from other languages (beside its "almost" plain
english syntax ?
Doesn't it feature variables, loops, if-then-else structures, arrays,
functions, etc. just like so many other languages ?

so what makes it so attractive and loveable ?


Maybe it's gran-pappy.HyperCard, i.e., its developers, and the 
community of people who gathered around its warming fire. Other people 
did programming, but HC scripters had FUN, more fun than anybody. We 
all just fell in love with it. With it we could, with reasonable ease, 
make our little computers do just about anything, make our non-Mac user 
friends salivate in jealousy, and formed a community of people who are 
still fast friends and co-workers today, and won the future of xTalks. 
Many of those people are right here, right now.


All the best,
Ken N.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Stgoldberg]

Different people learn in different ways.   In my own case, it is 
indispensable to read through entire manuals first in a systematic way.   
That's the way 
I learned Hypercard (Danny Goodman's and Dan Shafer's books), Supercard, 
mTropolis, Revolution (including Dan Shafer's book), Photoshop, Illustrator, 
Bryce, 
Vue,   and a whole host of other programs.   I agree that once having gone 
through a manual, practice, repetition, and experimenting are vital to mastery 
of a system.   Reading the manual first, though (at the very least an excellent 
Getting Started manual), gives the reader an idea of the sort of things that 
a program is capable of doing, which then allows the programmer to plan doable 
things.   Not reading the manual results in a lot of gaps in understanding 
what a program can and cannot do.   Thus, proper documentation is very 
important.   The problem is not that Revolution is a bad program.   To the 
contrary, it 
is a superb program, which is why I've   switched to Revolution as a 
replacement for the now-defunct mTropolis.   The problem is that it is very 
difficult 
for a novice, who has not already learned a related language (like HyperCard) 
to get into using Revolution without good documentation.   And even with a 
scripting background, Revolution still needs a better description of its basic 
features.   I've read the entire User manual.   Can someone tell me, for 
instance, where there is any basic organized documention as to   the key 
features of 
the Property Inspector, which is central to the development process?   In 
order to survive, Revolution will need to attract new users.   Proper 
documentation is very important to attracting new users.

Steve Goldberg 
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Dan Shafer]

One man's "Aaarrgh!" is another man's "Ahhh."

On Nov 27, 2005, at 5:03 PM, Dennis Brown wrote:

Another thing that makes it different (part of the depth and  
complexity) is the type-less nature of containers.  You tell it  
what you want it to do generically, and it figures out how based on  
the kind of data you give it --even if you switched data types the  
next time through... Aaarrgh!




~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Dennis Brown]

Another thing that makes it different (part of the depth and  
complexity) is the type-less nature of containers.  You tell it what  
you want it to do generically, and it figures out how based on the  
kind of data you give it --even if you switched data types the next  
time through... Aaarrgh!


Dennis

On Nov 27, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Charles Hartman wrote:



On Nov 27, 2005, at 5:47 PM, jbv wrote:


Ok that's fine... but still I'm wondering : what (if anything) makes
Transcript different from other languages (beside its "almost" plain
english syntax ?
Doesn't it feature variables, loops, if-then-else structures, arrays,
functions, etc. just like so many other languages ?


Speaking as a beginner & ignoramus, but one who's used other  
languages for a variety of grow-your-own projects for many years,  
I'd say it really *is* different, and the superficial similarities  
(the kinds function calls and if-clauses any language, right down  
to ASM, needs) are misleading.


It's the message path that dominates everything, I think. When you  
keep it in mind you tend to make right decisions about design,  
large and small. When you forget about it, you don't just do  
inefficient work, you paint yourself into deeply bafflling corners.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Charles Hartman]

On Nov 27, 2005, at 5:47 PM, jbv wrote:


Ok that's fine... but still I'm wondering : what (if anything) makes
Transcript different from other languages (beside its "almost" plain
english syntax ?
Doesn't it feature variables, loops, if-then-else structures, arrays,
functions, etc. just like so many other languages ?


Speaking as a beginner & ignoramus, but one who's used other  
languages for a variety of grow-your-own projects for many years, I'd  
say it really *is* different, and the superficial similarities (the  
kinds function calls and if-clauses any language, right down to ASM,  
needs) are misleading.


It's the message path that dominates everything, I think. When you  
keep it in mind you tend to make right decisions about design, large  
and small. When you forget about it, you don't just do inefficient  
work, you paint yourself into deeply bafflling corners.


Charles Hartman

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[jbv]

Dennis,

Ok that's fine... but still I'm wondering : what (if anything) makes
Transcript different from other languages (beside its "almost" plain
english syntax ?
Doesn't it feature variables, loops, if-then-else structures, arrays,
functions, etc. just like so many other languages ?

so what makes it so attractive and loveable ?

Best;
JB


--



_
Faith is a central nervous system disease, like Alzheimer or multiple sclerosis.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Pierre Sahores]

Le 27 nov. 05 à 19:56, Dan Shafer a écrit :


It's a proven fact that people who have more birthdays live longer.


Thanks Dan for this Good Luck methodology reminder..., something very  
closely binded with the points of view we are able to filter, the  
actions and responsabilities we are able to drive head, fine humour  
included :-)


--
Best Regards, Pierre Sahores

100, rue de Paris
F - 77140 Nemours

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

GSM:   +33 6 03 95 77 70
Pro:  +33 1 64 45 05 33
Fax:  +33 1 64 45 05 33



WEB/VoD/ACID-DB services over IP
"Mutualiser les deltas de productivité"


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Dennis Brown]

On Nov 27, 2005, at 4:17 PM, jbv wrote:


Transcript is different enough from other popular languages,


in what is it different (beside the fact that it's much closer to
natural english than any other language) ? just asking...

uses
different terms and metaphors,


same question as above... again, just asking...


and is so rich and complex in its
capabilities that it takes understanding beyond the deceptively
simple surface to get an idea of what one can really accomplish with
it.


IMHO this could be said also about C or PHP or...

so what makes Transcript so specific (beside the fact that it's used
only by happy few) ?


I usually need to approach a problem from the side instead of the  
bottom or top if I want the solution to be fast and elegant.  It is  
the more unusual parts of the language that have the true power.  It  
is obviously not different in concept than other xTalks, but xTalks  
are not the usual language of choice for developers.  Having keyed  
arrays opens up new approaches, but lack of fixed ones can make  
others painful.  Data structures need to be approached differently.   
Spending a year on this list has opened my eyes to approaches that  
are different than what I would have considered the straight forward  
way of doing things (for a computer).  The old hands seem to be  
frequently surprising each other with insights into how things work  
and how to approach simple problems in unusual ways that work  
better.  Of course once you spend a few years learning to think in  
Latin (oops, I mean Transcript), it all seems natural.


Dennis
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[jbv]

Dennis Brown a *crit :

>
> Transcript is different enough from other popular languages,

in what is it different (beside the fact that it's much closer to
natural english than any other language) ? just asking...

> uses
> different terms and metaphors,

same question as above... again, just asking...

> and is so rich and complex in its
> capabilities that it takes understanding beyond the deceptively
> simple surface to get an idea of what one can really accomplish with
> it.

IMHO this could be said also about C or PHP or...

so what makes Transcript so specific (beside the fact that it's used
only by happy few) ?

Best,
JB (who fell in love with xTalk circa 1987)


--



_
Faith is a central nervous system disease, like Alzheimer or multiple sclerosis.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Frank R]

Ok, here's my two cents about the state of the docs:
   
  - The intro videos are well done.  Although, I also had a big give-me-a-break 
moment when I saw I had to pay $50 to finish watching the videos.  
   
  - The content of the docs is reasonable.
   
  - The lack of a complete  User's/Programming  guide, without having to buy 
some other books, is very poor.
   
  Yeah, reading reference-like material is do-able for many, but in my view, 
it's a very big black eye for an otherwise intriguing and powerful product.
   
  For all the dialog we all just had on the pricing of this product, I'd cite 
this as an even bigger problem - you Can't expect to grow this product's 
use/market without the existence of a single, complete  User's/Programming  
guide  included.  Lots of tire-kickers will quit early, thinking this thing has 
to be a nearly-unsupported *toy*  with the docs in their current form.   They'd 
be making a wrong conclusion, but I can see people making it after taking a 
quick tour of the docs.
   
   
   
   
  

Dan Shafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Your feeling is right. I am 60. I don't 
worry about age. It's a 
proven fact that people who have more birthdays live longer.

Besides, I always heard programming was a young man's game so I 
figure if I keep doing it maybe the Universe will forget my 
chronological age.

And for my feelings about the docs, go to http:// 
www.revolutionpros.com and click on "Views". That way I don't have to 
repeat them here endlessly!

On Nov 27, 2005, at 4:33 AM, Mathewson wrote:

> Although I am a mere 43 (I have a feeling Dan Shafer is
> older)



~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
>From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Dan Shafer]

Your feeling is right. I am 60. I don't worry about age. It's a  
proven fact that people who have more birthdays live longer.


Besides, I always heard programming was a young man's game so I  
figure if I keep doing it maybe the Universe will forget my  
chronological age.


And for my feelings about the docs, go to http:// 
www.revolutionpros.com and click on "Views". That way I don't have to  
repeat them here endlessly!


On Nov 27, 2005, at 4:33 AM, Mathewson wrote:


Although I am a mere 43 (I have a feeling Dan Shafer is
older)




~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
From http://www.shafermediastore.com/tech_main.html


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Dennis Brown]

Richmond,

While I agree with your sentiment (I learned programming the same  
way, though a few years earlier), I don't see Transcript  
documentation as something to compare to other languages from the  
point of view of whose documentation is the worst.


I see what the documentation could be --as a competitive advantage to  
other languages by lowering the barrier to entry and mastery.   
Transcript is different enough from other popular languages, uses  
different terms and metaphors, and is so rich and complex in its  
capabilities that it takes understanding beyond the deceptively  
simple surface to get an idea of what one can really accomplish with  
it.  Spend a year monitoring this list and you start to get the sense  
of it.  However, as you pointed out, rather than just getting you  
feet wet, there is nothing like diving in and thrashing about a good  
while to figure it out.  I am of that school of thought also.


However, I also know how frustrating it can be when stuff does not  
work the way you thought, or you don't even know how to ask the  
questions about what you want to accomplish.  I continue to be amazed  
at the questions from newbies on this list.  Most of the time I can't  
even figure out what they are asking,  then along comes three answers  
from the ranks of experience that understand what the person was  
really asking in spite of what they said.


That was my dilemma about the documentation --how to provide an  
answer when the person does not even know how to ask the question.   
That is why I keep poking at the concept of documentation that can be  
indexed into by an outline from general to specific topics with more  
than one path to the specific information --and I am not talking  
about just the standard docs, but the wisdom of this list also.


Dennis


On Nov 27, 2005, at 7:33 AM, Mathewson wrote:


I learnt Hypercard without a book,
and I extended my knowledge, as RR extended xTalk, in the
same way:

by doing!

Ludwig Wittgenstein said that too many people Philosophise
and not enough DO PHILOSOPHY.

Now if we all DID Runtime Revolution:

i.e. got in there, got our feet wet, realised that (despite
a few itches) it really is just about the best
cross-platform RAD out there, and used the built-in
documentation as well as we are able to . . .

We would probably shut-up about the 'awful this and the
awful that'.

Although I am a mere 43 (I have a feeling Dan Shafer is
older) I started computer programming with FORTRAN 4 in
1975 - then BASIC, then PASCAL, ZILOG . . . those who moan
(I don't mean the odd 'twitch') and continue to moan about
RR's documentation and "lack-of-ease-of-use" ought to try
programming with one of those horrible Hollerith card
punchers:

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Constant 'Nonsense' about RR documentation

[Mathewson]

I learnt Hypercard without a book,
and I extended my knowledge, as RR extended xTalk, in the
same way:

by doing!

Ludwig Wittgenstein said that too many people Philosophise
and not enough DO PHILOSOPHY.

Now if we all DID Runtime Revolution:

i.e. got in there, got our feet wet, realised that (despite
a few itches) it really is just about the best
cross-platform RAD out there, and used the built-in
documentation as well as we are able to . . .

We would probably shut-up about the 'awful this and the
awful that'.

Although I am a mere 43 (I have a feeling Dan Shafer is
older) I started computer programming with FORTRAN 4 in
1975 - then BASIC, then PASCAL, ZILOG . . . those who moan
(I don't mean the odd 'twitch') and continue to moan about
RR's documentation and "lack-of-ease-of-use" ought to try
programming with one of those horrible Hollerith card
punchers:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/cards.html

a stack of cards,

a Fortran Manual (remember all that stuff about
formatting?),

and the 2-3 week wait while your cards sat in a queue at
one of the few Universities that offered a public service.

"Spoilt, spoilt, spoilt . . "  says Richmond stumping off
puffing his pipe!
__
See Mathewson's software at:

http://members.maclaunch.com/richmond/default.html
___
---
The Think Different Store
http://www.thinkdifferentstore.com/
For All Your Mac Gear
---
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution