On 17/08/15 00:34, J. Landman Gay wrote:
You're right. It was also it increase the user base, which it did
considerably, so that LC would become better known and accepted
generally. As you say, the move to open source was also meant to allow
others to contribute to the engine so that fixes and new features
would be incorporated more quickly. Unfortunately that hasn't been the
case; except for a few skilled people (actually I can only think of
two offhand) the community has not done much there.
Contributing to the engine requires that LiveCode users have what is
called 'meta-knowledge', i.e. they understand other programming
languages (specifically C++ as I understand).
NOW, a long time ago, I contributed by making a different toolBar stack
(which was used by other people), and more recently I made a stack to
muck around with both the menuBar and the toolBar stacks: while these
are mainly cosmetic they can help people's work-flow.
The first toolBar stack went the way of all flesh at about version 2.1
because of a general interface change.
I would love to contribute a lot of stuff that I have stored on a
variety of hard drivers that I have accumulated over the last 14 years
or so: of varying utility - if I could find somewhere to store this
online (at no cost to myself as I have NO money), and where people could
get at it
because it was properly publicised (perhaps via the LiveCode webpage) I
would upload all of it is a shot.
OH! Where is the unified IDE that was waved around during the
Kickstarter thing, and doesn't seem to have come up on the 'Report Card'?
Now, if, coupled with the Open Source release there had been some sort
of details about how non-specialists could contribute that would
have been a great help.
Also, with the 'NON' nature of revOnline recently, and so on, a library
of reusable stacks/code snippets that is freely and universally available
has been a bit difficult . . .
Also: the Profit Motive is very strong . . . let's see some incentives,
however small, and that may drive user contributions up.
After all, at Primary schools kids collect stars . . .
I've contributed a tiny little bit to fix an IDE bug but that's about
as far as my own skills go.
I wonder what made the folks at LiveCode think that there were lots of
'experts' lurking out "there", when most people either
use LiveCode or use another language (such as C++) elsewhere?
Richmond.
On 8/16/2015 3:07 PM, Roger Eller wrote:
In my opinion, it was to give it a chance to grow, by incorporating
other
open tech, and also to just KEEP UP with the ever changing tech world
without consuming the inadequate resources of the mother ship.
On Aug 16, 2015 2:46 AM, "Terence Heaford" <t.heaf...@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16 Aug 2015, at 07:42, Kay C Lan <lan.kc.macm...@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought THE objective of the KickStarter Campaign was to make LC
Open
Source and Free to the Community. Wasn't that achieved? Everything
else
was
just secondary but in support of that goal.
Can you give us your opinion as to why LC was made Open Source?
Thanks
Terry
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
