I had always thought that it was the developers who successfully lobbied against HC. It was feared that sales of shrink wrapped software in general would suffer if a large population of users could roll their own solutions. No need for filemaker or excel.
Craig Newman -----Original Message----- From: Todd Geist <[email protected]> To: How to use LiveCode <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Dec 1, 2011 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [OT}] Hypercard and an uneasy read. Hi Bob, The part that I most liked about the linked article was the emphasis on explorability. I think HyperCard had it. My other Tool FileMaker had it. FileMaker has less of it today. And I think that LiveCode is not as explorable as HyperCard was. In the case of LiveCode it nows support 7 platforms instead of one. This adds a lot of complexity, but I am not sure I would trade that away. I will say this that LiveCode and FileMaker both remain two of the most explorable user interface design tools around. HTML/CSS/Javascript have traditionally sucked in this regard although recently that has changed with the rise of Jquery and other JS libraries. Still I defy anyone who has not done it before to create a simple form with HTML/CSS and JS, I don't care what IDE they use, they won't be able to do it. But give some body a LiveCode Stack or a FileMaker DB and they might be able to pull it off. They can explore their way there. Thats what I love about Explorability. But your other point about a solution not being simpler than the problem it is meant to solve. I understand what you mean. But if that were true then there wouldn't be much advancement in technology. I think that breakthroughs in technology are really about taking a complex problem and making it simpler. The best solutions are the simplest ones. "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein Todd On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bob Sneidar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Todd. Let me propose that a solution cannot be simpler than the problem > it is meant to solve. People who think so are usually only imagining how > simple the solution can be. When they actually get in and try to solve it, > they find a world of complexity that was hiding behind their imaginations. > Every serious developer finds this to be true eventually. That was my > problem when I first started using Livecode. Coming from Hypercard, I > thought, "Oh I know how to do that!" But I had to relearn a lot, and some > things I had to learn from scratch, and I am still learning every day! > > Livecode is to me like a constructor set of pieces of things you can put > together to make something, rather than a toolchest full of tools to make > something. You can see the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. > With a constructor set, parts are already prefabbed, and a system is worked > out for how the pieces all fit together. You don't have to go get raw > materials to work with, all that has been done for you. You just have to > decide what you want to make, and if the parts all exist to be successful. > But what you are going to end up with is no where near as elegant as you > might have envisioned, nor will it be as functional, especially the more > complex your project. But putting something together that is useful and > even fairly complex is MUCH FASTER! > > The toolchest approach means you have to make each part yourself, from the > ground up. Perhaps you can adapt to pieces others have built already, > (API's, libraries etc) but essentially, everything has to be manufactured > all by keeping in mind a very precise plan for how it will all fit and work > together. LOT more planning is required, as well as a fairly refined > skillset and a level of expertise that much fewer people have. And it is > going to take a LOT more time, probably more than any one person really > wants to spend, so you will probably have to enlist help for more complex > projects, and they will have to be experienced to some degree as well. > > In the end it comes down to this: There are a huge number of people, that > if convinced there is a software "constructor set" advanced enough and yet > simple enough that they could make a customized app they really need for a > minimal investment in time, learning and money, they would jump at the > opportunity. We need to find those people. Neither the constructor set > project, nor the toolchest project is going to build itself. And for my > part, I know for a fact that I do not have the time to become proficient > with the toolchests of today (Java, C++ Objective C) to ever get to the > place where I can even begin to build something approaching useful. > > So I would rather work with the mystery knobs, because those I can figure > out and then it won't be a mystery anymore. But the huge store of black > magic behind the door that is Java, C++ and Objective C I will never grasp, > and really don't want to. My 2¢ > > Bob > > > On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Todd Geist wrote: > > > LiveCode has an awful lot of Mystery Knobs. > > > > Todd > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > -- Todd Geist (805) 419-9382 _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
