Sure.. try this: go stack url "http://wiki.hindu.org/uploads/SivasHawaiiRevels_v001.livecode";
it's so "bad" as it is "just below par" enough to cause others to blink at it. I realize this seems like a challenge but take my word for it. Here in our shop we have several Keynote presentation masters that can make a keynote look almost like a good short flick-movie done in Hollywood. One html5 man who work in Angular and soon React. We also develop videos, movies on a monthly basis…and we have hired out some HTML5 development, and I get to see the iterations on development of those media modules in any browser; so it's not like this is just opinionated griping. We are working in a very real world media context where *everything* is about what you see and how it moves and how easy/hard it is to develop the front end (what you see) And that is the other issue -- developing the "views" Again this not opinion but based very real hard experience. Take the new home screen for our new app (I'll let everyone download from GIT soon if you are interested) http://wiki.hindu.org/uploads/home-screen-1.jpg http://wiki.hindu.org/uploads/home-screen-2.jpg This is in LC with a simple panel set of a group that has to scroll up and down. You have no idea how much time was spend ($) getting this to work easily in LC, including the ability to change things very quickly across all parts of the whole group. This same "view" could have been done Angular or React in a few hours. And, once done, be responsive, scrollable and any attribute that stake holder thought should be changed -- done on the spot with the minor adjustment of a single integer value in an CSS rule. Put another way: a competent html5 dev can build gorgeous, responsive, easily tweakable GUI in 1/10 the time it takes to achieve the same level of production values in Livecode. OTOH when it comes to coding the controllers/ models (libraries and scripts) my experience is that even html5 dev with a lot of experience in JS will still take 5 times longer to code the JS than Jacqueline who knows only LIvecode. And in the end Jacque's code is actually shorter and readable. So: that's my point: the ability to create/use HTML5 for "views" with lightweight JS that can talk to a robust LC back end, like any other LC control, that would be a total snake pit if it were all done in JS.. it would require a level of expertise (and the money to pay for expertise hours) We even have a small project done for "peanuts" by a very low priced HTML5 man in Belaruz. The UI is so simple but gorgeous animation , but cost for just a tiny framework, even at low rates is very high relative to the output. An LC developer code out the module in 1/10 the time/cost . I would past the URL to see what he has done, but he changed the framework on the back end so that the page would load faster -- another "cost" of the JS/Python/Node code requirements to put up a simple animated splash screen. Point: html + CSS + a small bit of JS = Marvelous UI + LC on the backend dynamite combo! On 1/28/17, 12:46 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of hh via use-livecode" <use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com on behalf of use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: BR wrote: "Even my attempts with AnimationEngine which is, I believe as good as it's going to ever get with LC's engine, have a clunky, jerky feel." I tried to generate such "bad" graphics in LC without any success. So: Could we see (at least one of) such attempts? Don't forget the source code. _______________________________________________ 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
