Dave said:
>>
I decided early on that to be really efficient in
RunRev you need to develop your own framework (or use a 3rd party
system), if you do this right you can obtain the maximum code and
screen design re-use. The problems that I found were because I was
doing things that probably had not been tested and probably doing
things that 95% of RunRev Scripters/Programmers don't do!
<<
Well, I think that this might well explain the differences.
Are you the same Dave who was developing his ISM library? If so, I
remember you were working at a level of abstraction that is quite
unusual (I believe) among Rev users. That's not to criticise you -
it's fantastic you are thinking about these problems like that and
trying to implement them in Rev. But that is going to lead you to
edge cases where there are going to be bugs and/or inconsistent
behaviors. If one pushes any platform to its limits, then there are
going to be problems that have not yet been found and dealt with.
You pushed Rev further than most people. You encountered more bugs/
undocumented behaviours/inconsistent behaviours than most people.
You end up with the idea that Rev is really buggy. If Rev was a lot
less flexible and dynamic, I think it would be a lot easier to find
bugs and make behaviours more consistent.
I'm using Rev with my own framework too to maximize code re-use, but
in an entirely different way from you. My way hasn't led me to run
across the bugs you've found.
It's great to have someone like you here pushing the boundary. But
you are wrong to conclude from that everyone else experiences Rev to
be as buggy as you do. (It is not that buggy for me.)
Bernard
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
