OpenXTalk Forums

So what exactly were your findings? I'm not sure what you meant by 'that' ?
Anyway, I've got other real life things to be doing at the moment.

As an aside, if someone turns up with blue skin, what should that matter? The colour of anyone's skin has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

-
MacOS 12 . . .
-
Over on the MacOS 15 with the Sonoma test it took 23 seconds!!!!!!!

richmond62 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 1:23 pm With that reset LC 963 built DW Pro 5.3.0 in 30 seconds!

How did you measure that? I assume you didn't use my 'Contaminated' timer script? Or was it with a stopwatch?

That's confusing. On that screenshot above, you are using v1.07 - which does not have the sonoma patching ability.
So you've updated it with my "contaminated" timer script (your words, not mine). Yet, you are happy with the result...

Right, glad we got that straightened out...

Glad the sonoma build in the v1.08 beta is now showing the correct build times if that's the case, which I suppose is comparable to the results I got in MacOS Monterey. So am I to take it from this that there's no longer any issue? OR, do you still get 10+ minute build times if you 'automatically detect inclusions'?

Anyway, just for reference, here's your Devawriter Pro stack being built in LCC 9.6.3 on a mac, with my "Contaminated" timer stack. And here's me building your standalone on LCC 9.6.3, without my "contaminated" timer, using this timer instead. The issue is NOT with my timer, but it is (as I've already said) with the "auto-detection of required inclusions" and the "Sonoma" build checkbox being used together.

The easiest way around that is just to disable the "auto detection of required inclusions" if the Sonoma checkbox is ticked, and enforce the "Select inclusions for the standalone application" instead, which I'm now tempted to do.

The 'problem', which we found out was a phantom, was that thing about inclusion.

As a pair of 'ghostbusters' we should be proud.

Call me 'Slimer'.

specified by LC as being compatible with anything past MacOS 11 Big Sur. (and even that's shaky: systemversion *cough*)

To be fair to LC Team, the system version problem was Apple's bug to fix, not LC's, it was an issue for other programming environments too.

We're always going to be up against an operating system's design team's decisions until we, like Richard Stallman, go back to bare metal and make our own system (and the GNU-HURD thing is STILL incomplete).

As a history teacher at my school said, "If you don't piss in your own pot, don't be surprised if you get yellow legs."

Take that as you may:

https://forums.livecode.com/viewtopic.p ... 25#p231825

Well, I'm glad that OXT Lite is working well for your purposes. Hopefully it's at a more useable state than 9.6.x of LCC finished at.

Hopefully it's at a more useable state than 9.6.x of LCC finished at.

To be completely honest, in terms of Devawriter Pro it makes no difference.

AND I could, if I wanted, continue development with LC 963.

The ONLY reasons I 'jumped ship' is because of the way LiveCode dumped the open source version of LC in a totally snotty way
and I cannot afford a licence for a MacOS ARM engine version of LC: and as Devawriter Pro has brought me NO income since the unfortunate death of my greatest champion, Brahmanathaswami
- -
(the 'nice' people at the monastery where he spent the better part of his life seem to have deleted all references to him, and all pictures: plain disgusting!)

the whole enterprise has to be Open Source.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 18, 2024 5:34 pm To be completely honest, in terms of Devawriter Pro it makes no difference.

There's a ringing endorsement of my efforts if ever there was one , oh well.

There's a ringing endorsement of my efforts

Only insofar as I have not leveraged any new features in OXT Lite in Devawriter Pro yet.

As the code base (stack) is about 14-15 years old unless I go for a complete GUI overhaul that is unlikely.

Continued development mainly revolves around whatever the Unicode consortium are playing at, and features to make digitising Sanskrit, Prakrits, and so forth easier: and MOST of that is either "under the hood" or just expanding existing interfaces.

What you should be concentrating on is this:

because of the way LiveCode dumped the open source version of LC in a totally snotty way

and as a showcase for OXT, which to quote someone else, somewhere else stated:

I have respect for the programmer and creator of Devawriter!
It seems to me that it is one of these applications that contribute to giving credibility to the use of Livecode as a programming tool.

BUT what is now being used is OXT Lite!

Part of me wonders about running off a thread about HOW I made Devawriter Pro, because, whether you are really interested in dead Indian languages (OK, OK, you are NOT), it might be interesting for anyone who wants to know how a relatively complex bit of tackle was put together using xTalk.

Anything such as this always contains useful snippets that someone will think - "Ah, I can perhaps use a similar method to do what I want in my version". All resources and examples are always good to have in my opinion.

So, I decided against going back in time to reconstruct making my Devawriter Pro, and decided, instead, to start work on a program to digitise Classical Ge'ez, which has almost as many problems as the Devanagari writing system in Devawriter Pro:

https://openxtalk.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1192

While Devawriter Pro has been developed for 98% of its life in LiveCode, Sheba is being 100% developed in OXT Lite.