Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

Chipp wrote: > Also, as you recall at the Rev Summit in CA, Chris Bohnert demonstrated > how easy it is to create an external for RR. One which can call a > Win32API if needed. So, it seems to me, an interim step would be a > really good primer for creating externals for RR. 'Cause even with a

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On 8/8/04 8:27 am, "Chipp Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Weider is the guy. He wrote an external primer for RR, but I don't > know whatever became of it... It will be shipped as part of 2.5. Kevin Miller ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ http://www.runrev.com/ Runtime Revolution - User-Centric D

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On 8/8/04 3:53 AM, "Dan Shafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OS X has AppleScript and supports the OSA (Open Scripting > Architecture). Windows has Windows Scripting Host (WSH) and I think > also supports OSA. OSA lets you create systtem-level actions in a > scripting tool like Perl or Python o

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

--- Ken Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/7/04 1:39 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >Now that I've got that out of my system: What > things do you PC boys find > > lacking in the PC implementation of Rev? > > Here's a couple of goodies: > > 1) Inability to use Ac

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

Dan Shafer wrote: Java's xplat support is, from all accounts and limited personal experience, a nightmare and a joke. Not anymore. Sure, when Marimba release Bongo we all had a good chuckle, but that was many years ago. A more modern example is ThinkFree Office:

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

Troy Rollins wrote: I think at the very least, Rev should support ActiveX controls... and as we all know, I'm a Mac guy. ActiveX is just too important to ignore. THAT is probable a bigger obstacle to Win penetration than any other single factor. It's hard to appreciate the how many companies de

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

Troy wrote >Out of curiosity, what functionality specifically do you need which >then requires QuickTime? Rev can obviously run happily without it, and >some basic media types are even supported in that case - but beyond >that, QuickTime is required to do the heavy lifting. Hi Troy, I wasn't real

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

Another idea has been percolating this morning. OS X has AppleScript and supports the OSA (Open Scripting Architecture). Windows has Windows Scripting Host (WSH) and I think also supports OSA. OSA lets you create systtem-level actions in a scripting tool like Perl or Python or Tcl. So it might

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On Aug 7, 2004, at 11:18 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: Unlike most of us on this list, you are already an accomplished C programmer. In fact, you have successfully written a couple VERY NICE externals for RR! Now, I wonder, how many others on this list would take the time to learn the correct C inter

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

I'd volunteer to work with Chris to create the primer even though I'm deliberately ignorant of C. Dan On Aug 7, 2004, at 11:18 PM, Chipp Walters wrote: Trevor DeVore wrote: I agree with Ken on this. I would like to see support for calling Win APIs, DLLs and ActiveX. Even though one of the maj

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

On Aug 8, 2004, at 2:29 AM, Chipp Walters wrote: Forgive my ignorance on this topic, but just so I understand. Does Director and Real Basic 'use' ActiveX tree controls, data grids, etc? If so, are they 'embedded' in the app with full access to properties and methods and instancing via script con

RE: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

> Personally I'd want access to other control types - trees, data grids, > panes, splitters, date/time pickers, charting controls, etc., plus the > ability to use other ActiveX controls that would act as drivers to other > hardware/software. Nothing you cannot do in RR with it's own controls... M

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

Ken and Troy, Forgive my ignorance on this topic, but just so I understand. Does Director and Real Basic 'use' ActiveX tree controls, data grids, etc? If so, are they 'embedded' in the app with full access to properties and methods and instancing via script control? If so, WOW. Do you know of a

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

Trevor DeVore wrote: I agree with Ken on this. I would like to see support for calling Win APIs, DLLs and ActiveX. Even though one of the major features of Rev is the ability to develop for multiple platforms there are jobs where catering to a specific platform is required. Trevor, Unlike mo

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

On 8/8/04 12:55 AM, "Chipp Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Troy et al.. > >> Agreed on both points. I think at the very least, Rev should support >> ActiveX controls... > > Do you have an idea on how you will use these? I knowPDF and Flash. > But others? (fact is, PDF and Flash can be

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

On Aug 8, 2004, at 1:55 AM, Chipp Walters wrote: Do you have an idea on how you will use these? I knowPDF and Flash. But others? (fact is, PDF and Flash can be already used within altBrowser, though albeit there are some functional issues.) There are so many... BTW, does Director and Flash su

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

Troy et al.. Agreed on both points. I think at the very least, Rev should support ActiveX controls... Do you have an idea on how you will use these? I knowPDF and Flash. But others? (fact is, PDF and Flash can be already used within altBrowser, though albeit there are some functional issues

RE: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

> On 8/7/04 5:54 PM, "MisterX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But it is easy and noticeably shorter and doesn't block RR... > > > > on doVBS x > > get shell("start" && x) > > end doVBS > > > > Although not built in, these are easy to do with the shell type > commands. > > Unlike externals, they

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

On Aug 8, 2004, at 12:41 AM, Dan Shafer wrote: 2. Neither adding hooks for native platform APIs, nor adding an alternate C-like syntax (as Director did) would cause the sky to fall. In fact both of these things would both make RunRev vastly more accessible and to, and usable by, the overwhelm

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Frank. On Aug 7, 2004, at 9:18 PM, Frank Leahy wrote: On Aug 7, 2004, at 11:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dan Shafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"? To: How to use Revolution <[E

Is being a good cross-platform tool good enough? [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

On Aug 7, 2004, at 7:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Troy Rollins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"? To: How to use Revolution <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowe

Re: The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

On Aug 8, 2004, at 12:18 AM, Frank Leahy wrote: 1. It is not only possible, but actually not all that hard, to create hooks to native platform APIs on a cross-platform tool. Java does it with JNI. Microsoft did it with their version of JNI (RNI?) that Sun had such a stink about and sued them

The sky is falling... [was Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?]

On Aug 7, 2004, at 11:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Dan Shafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"? To: How to use Revolution <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On Aug 7, 2004, at 7:18 PM, Ken Ray wrote: Well, you'll have to tell that to Real Software (unless you don't think they are a true xplat development tool) - see the Declare statement in the RealBasic help stack. And Toolbook (although it is not xplat, but IS xTalk) has support for accessing the W

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On 8/7/04 6:24 PM, "Dan Shafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ken > > What you are saying here is that you want a cross-platform tool that > still allows you to do very platform-specific code. Or maybe you don't > care about cross-platform as long as you can use the system-specific > stuff. Ei

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On 8/7/04 5:54 PM, "MisterX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But it is easy and noticeably shorter and doesn't block RR... > > on doVBS x > get shell("start" && x) > end doVBS > > Although not built in, these are easy to do with the shell type commands. > Unlike externals, they dont tie up the RR

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On 8/7/04 5:58 PM, "MisterX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > remember flash is web based primarily so it's normal it cant do those. Perhaps, but that was Macromedia's decision to cripple Flash's standalone capability to that of its browser plugin. Personally I would have given Flash standalones more

RE: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

remember flash is web based primarily so it's normal it cant do those. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ken Ray > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 00:05 > To: Use Revolution List > Subject: Re: Is Rev too "Mac f

RE: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

Ken, > - Being able to create new registry keys in the Windows registry > > - Ability to call VBScript as easily as AppleScript ("do

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On 8/7/04 5:01 PM, "Troy Rollins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I gotcha. I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't some X-plat > tool which had this in place as well. Well, RB supports API calls and ActiveX, but not accessing normal Windows DLLs directly, I believe. Directory as you said ha

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On Aug 7, 2004, at 5:53 PM, Ken Ray wrote: Which x-plat development tools can do this? Troy, as was stated before by someone more eloquent than me, PC programmers may or may not care about the cross-platform nature of Rev. So I wouldn't be comparing Rev to other cross-platform tools when looking

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On 8/7/04 4:31 PM, "Troy Rollins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Ken Ray wrote: > >> Here's a couple of goodies: >> >> 1) Inability to use ActiveX or COM controls (although with Chipp's >> altBrowser you can use them in a web browser, but that's different). > > I kn

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On Aug 7, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Ken Ray wrote: Here's a couple of goodies: 1) Inability to use ActiveX or COM controls (although with Chipp's altBrowser you can use them in a web browser, but that's different). I know Director can use ActiveX, what other x-plat tools can? Does RealBasic? 3) Inability

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On 8/7/04 1:39 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Now that I've got that out of my system: What things do you PC boys find > lacking in the PC implementation of Rev? Here's a couple of goodies: 1) Inability to use ActiveX or COM controls (although with Chipp's altBrowser you

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

On Aug 7, 2004, at 4:52 PM, Stephen King wrote: For me, reliance on 3rd party QT is a *big* issue. This is true, and frequently heard with all tools that use multimedia - from the Windows side of things. It is a non-issue on Mac, and wouldn't even qualify as "third party." Consider that, for cros

Re: Is Rev too "Mac focused"?

I thought the problem was that MS changed its TTS right around the time that Rev implemented it for the previous TTS system and that Rev was going to fix it on the Rev side to be compliant with MS's TTS kit. Am I wrong? Judy On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Text-to-speech. It's