On Jan 19, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Chipp Walters wrote:
It's really just a matter of style, for instance, I *never* use the
card method for this. I only use multiple card stacks in a couple
places:
1) Wizards
2) I many times use the 2nd card in a stack to store all the icons for
the first card.
Thi
Chipp Walters wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> A quick Google shows you're the product manager for Real Basic. Guess
> that sorta slipped your sig ;-)
I certainly wasn't trying to hide my affiliation and I did use my REAL
Software email address. I tend not to use a signature very often although
it would
that this particular contest misses the point for like 99
out of 100 programming situations.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chipp
Walters
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:48 PM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: RunRev vs RealBasic
Hi David,
A quick Google shows you're the product manager for Real Basic. Guess
that sorta slipped your sig ;-)
I certainly understand your desire to defend RB to the max.
I followed closely the previous RB-RR thread, and don't recall it as you
do. Perhaps we should discuss over lunch? (I'm in A
Chipp Walters wrote:
> In fairness to Rev, there was no stipulation regarding how many lines of
> code it take to generate the results. In fact, one could concatenate all
> lines of the Rev code using ';' to solve the problem in only 1 line of
> code ;-)
True, there wasn't a line requirement. Ho
see thread
Bugzilla 586, the fast char replacement (was Revolution compilation)
I had a hard time counting to 4.
I get a 4000X improvement on my dual 2GHz PPC G5.
Michael
On Jan 20, 2005, at 4:43 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
For clarity, I should admit that I'd accidentally misquoted Scott
Raney's c
David Grogono wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> We had a rather funny thread here last year in which an RB
>> fan started a bake-off for speed on a parsing algorithm on
>> a fairly large file. True 'nuff, RB was faster -- but only
>> by 3 milliseconds. And that was the overal score -- in the
>>
In fairness to Rev, there was no stipulation regarding how many lines of
code it take to generate the results. In fact, one could concatenate all
lines of the Rev code using ';' to solve the problem in only 1 line of
code ;-)
Also, there are certainly different things going on in the two code
Michael D Mays wrote:
>>> All I know is what Dar posted here, but it sounded really tasty.
>>> Apparently he made a suggestion to Scott Raney about ways to
>>> optimize operations in which a string of a given length is used
>>> to replace a substring of the same length within a larger chunk.
>>> In
Yes 4000 times faster, once you take your shoes off.
One char, 4 char and 8 char replacement is fast.
on mouseUp
repeat with i = 1 to 100
put "1234567890" after dd
end repeat
put 990 into a
get the long seconds
put "a" into char a of dd
put "abcd" into char a to a+3 of dd
Richard Gaskin wrote:
> We had a rather funny thread here last year in which an RB fan started a
> bake-off for speed on a parsing algorithm on a fairly large file. True
> 'nuff, RB was faster -- but only by 3 milliseconds. And that was the
> overal score -- in the most common task, loading a fil
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Chipp Walters wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> I've been pondering this new speed enhancement to same-size
>> chunk replacements, specifically in regard to image processing.
>> Since much of what image processing involves is replacing a
>> specific number of bytes, I won
Chipp Walters wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> I've been pondering this new speed enhancement to same-size
>> chunk replacements, specifically in regard to image processing.
>> Since much of what image processing involves is replacing a
>> specific number of bytes, I wonder if any of the folks her
I did write some compositing and blur/sharpen filters in transcript some
time ago, but I don't know the details of the 'same-size chunk'
replacements. Where can I find more info?
Richard Gaskin wrote:
I've been pondering this new speed enhancement to same-size chunk
replacements, specifically i
Thomas Gutzmann wrote:
And with the recent 4000-fold increase in speed for same-size chunk
replacements, I wonder if the kind of graphics processing you're doing
could now be done in Rev. What does that entail?
This speed increase is impressing, but having tried quite some
alternatives, I'm sur
Dan Shafer wrote:
On Jan 19, 2005, at 12:34 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
What got me started using groups instead of cards was referencing
objects in scripts: While designing WebMerge 2.0 I kept moving
controls from one tab to another until I got myself clear on what the
program's flow should be.
On Jan 19, 2005, at 12:34 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
What got me started using groups instead of cards was referencing
objects in scripts: While designing WebMerge 2.0 I kept moving
controls from one tab to another until I got myself clear on what the
program's flow should be. During those chan
Dan Shafer wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2005, at 7:37 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
>> Note that the multi-card solution for tabs can still be used even if
>> only a part of the window needs to change, as long as there is only
>> one. You can group everything else (perhaps along with the tab panel
>> itself) and
It's really just a matter of style, for instance, I *never* use the card
method for this. I only use multiple card stacks in a couple places:
1) Wizards
2) I many times use the 2nd card in a stack to store all the icons for
the first card.
This goes along with the concept of keeping the data an
Geoff
Good point. I have a mixture of the two types of needs, but when I can,
I now use the card method as it is much more flexible and easier to
code.
Dan
On Jan 19, 2005, at 7:37 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
On Jan 17, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
On another app, though I *had* to use t
On Jan 17, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Dan Shafer wrote:
On another app, though I *had* to use the hide/show groups method
because only part of a window (card) changes in response to the users
selections.
Note that the multi-card solution for tabs can still be used even if
only a part of the window needs
The loud noise you just heard was the sound of my open hand smiting my
forehead.
This would have made one of my apps SO much simpler. In fact, I'm
actually tempted to go rewrite the darned thing using separate cards
and this technique. The client just asked for some significant changes
and I s
Hi Richard,
thanks for your kind reply. My remarks are inline.
> But there are cases where OOP is simply better, and then RB
> is the better choice, of course (better than Java, too). I
> have an application where I need a very fast and complicated
> graphic interface with a large number of objects
On 1/17/05 12:25 PM, "Andre Garzia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 15, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
>> You have two basic ways to work with tabs in Rev: putting the tab in a
>> shared group and moving between cards in response to the menuPick
>> message, or responding to tha
On Jan 15, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
You have two basic ways to work with tabs in Rev: putting the tab in a
shared group and moving between cards in response to the menuPick
message, or responding to that message by hiding and showing groups.
Damn! :-)
I never tought of sharing a
Hi all.
Here is an alternative perspective on rev vs realbasic. Nothing to do with
the product usabliity.
Go to these links on the apple store (I use windows myself)
Runtime revolution search
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71502/wo/NqzSeidBmxYv2IKanzr7Wtb2d1e/1.3.
> > - I sometimes have the impression that Revolution as a company
> > doesn't really exist. They are hardly ever seen in this list,
> > it's hard to get responses from them. I think that one of the
> > secrets of the success for RB was (and is) their presence and
> > visibility in the devel
On Jan 15, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Thomas Gutzmann wrote:
I have an application where I need a very fast and complicated graphic
interface with a large number of objects. This I have written in RB;
the rest of the application is being written in Rev. All these single
and largely independent windows ca
Thomas Gutzmann wrote:
> But there are cases where OOP is simply better, and then RB
> is the better choice, of course (better than Java, too). I
> have an application where I need a very fast and complicated
> graphic interface with a large number of objects. This I have
> written in RB; the rest
Am 31.12.2004 um 05:30 schrieb Ken Ray:
Personally I think on of the biggest advantages that Rev has over RB
is that
you can go from editing to running *immediately*; you don't need to
compile
and run. So for example, if you're working on a dialog box that would
normally take you 5 mouse clicks t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have a very limited amount of experience with Visual Basic, and ran
the RealBasic demo when trying to decide on a tool for the project I am
doing. I have had a little more experience with other languages,
including other forms of Basic (Applesoft
On 12/30/04 4:42 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, Richard, point taken. I'll begin by telling about myself. I have
> fairly extensive experience with the Windows API, Unix, and the Macintosh
> environment. I am very familiar with tools such as XCODE, GCC, etc. I hav
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.2
X-Originating-IP: 12.203.234.218
Thanks, Richard, point taken. I'll begin by telling a
33 matches
Mail list logo
