OpenXTalk Forums

richmond62 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 10:14 am ...I bet a pair of my old, sweaty socks, that that will NOT behave itself (i.e. run on macOS 12) ...

Just a thought, and this may be a silly question, (but I'll ask it anyway).
If the older mac you are running this on is 32bit intel, could you not install a 32bit version of Linux on it (MX-Linux comes to mind, as it's still being updated).

That way, you could probably run an up-to-date copy of Livecode on it (and doctor it how you want, to change the appearance and remove all the LC branding) - or even then have the option of running the Lite 'hack' version.

If I'm reading this right, about running 9.6.x on 32-bit linux, it should work:

System requirements
https://tekkieuni.livecode.com/LiveCodeNotes-9_6_8.pdf

tperry2x wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:28 am If the older mac you are running this on is 32bit intel, could you not install a 32bit version of Linux on it (MX-Linux comes to mind, as it's still being updated).

When a computer vendor stops supporting a given model, replacing their increasingly-vulnerable abandonware with a supported OS is the safer option.

1. My Macs running 'Tired Lion' are just fine.

2. My Macs running 'Wide Awake Monterey' and 'Virginal Sonoma' are also just fine.

3. My 32-bit laptop runs Debian 12 XFCE with LC 963 just fine.

4. If you read this thread through properly and carefully you would realise that 1, 2, and 3 were completely irrelevant to the main idea in the thread.

My IDEA is to produce a debranded version of LC 7.1.4 that will run on macOS 12/13.

According to Paul this should be possible.

The goal is to produce something WITHOUT widgets that can be used for:

1. Teachers to produce in-house software for their pupils to use.

2. Teaching the foundational programming concepts without the 'Disneyesque' distractions of SCRATCH and similar 'programming' environments.

BUT, if I cannot, initially, get LC 714 running on 64-bit Macs, either:

1. I shall give this idea up.

or

2. Build a Linux-Only 'thing'.

Oh, and while I am here, Fourthworld, as you have endlessly banged on about hardware, operating systems, and support, and a proportion of us have quite adequately demonstrated we are not interested in your, increasingly repetitive mantra, how about stopping?

Waiting at some fly-blown bus station in a small city in a small country in the fag end of Europe, where people have limited resources, as is true of about 85% of the world, makes me increasingly sick of people who are lucky (?) enough to live in places where these things are less pressing.

My car is spending a week in the Toyota place thanks to some wankers who biffed it quite a few times.

I do not know what the Bulgarian for 'courtesy car' is . . . LOL.

Most people hereabouts cannot get their heads round my hardware.

So . . . what with one thing and another [a way of saying about 2 hours of vacuum cleaning the house and related nonsense], here I am in front of my fantastic 'new-fer-you' 2015 27" iMac running macOS 12 to see if that version of LC 714 that has had heart transplant surgery will strut its funky stuff hereabouts.

Wow! and Cowabunga! the blasted thing runs; mainly because it has the heart of 8.2.0 dp 2.

I would like [in the best bitchy tradition] to remind 'folk' that stating "714 will work with an LC 8 engine" is so flamingly imprecise that it cost me 5 days to fart around with 8 engineS to get the thing to work.

Aaaaah, BUT, and there is almost always a 'but':

The LC 714 will not 'in and of itself' build a 64_bit Mac standalone:
- -

While LC 8.1.10 has no such problems:
- -
"Experimental" or not: that runs perfectly acceptably on macOS 12:
- -
Things begin to go "queer" with LC 8.2.0 insofar as from the unitary "revstandalonesettings.rev" in 7.1.4 we move to a whole
folder full of livecodescript files . . .

What is not clear to me at the moment is whether the 'quantum leap' from simple stacks to script-only stacks took place at the version 7 - version 8 'breakpoint', or somewhere between LC 8.0.0 and LC 8.2.0. To find out what I can I am currently downloading 8.0.0 [possibly for the 100th time!]

Aha, but I wonder about that '8', it might throw a spanner in the works:
- -
Well, Jai, Jai, Jai! The thing will build 'some sort' of 64-bit standalone . . .

. . . Let's see.
- -
AND a standalone built with that works on macOS 12.

So, now it is time to play "silly buggers" again, swapping files around.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 4:46 pm ...What is not clear to me at the moment is whether the 'quantum leap' from simple stacks to script-only stacks took place at the version 7 - version 8 'breakpoint', or somewhere between LC 8.0.0 and LC 8.2.0...

Looking through various release notes PDFs at:
https://file.livecode.com/livecode/7_1_ ... -7_1_1.pdf
On page 15, and 12 lines up from the bottom of the page, they begin to mention loading of script-only stacks in debug mode and seem to imply this was at 7.1.0 DP1, so it may have started to creep in then.

In version 8.0.0 DP3
https://file.livecode.com/livecode/8_0_ ... -8_0_0.pdf
On page 26, they introduced the option of being able to create a "script-only" stack when creating new stacks from the file menu.

Hope that helps a bit. Might narrow down the amount of digging and might make your life easier when performing various engine swaps.

Thank you for that.

In the Mac package for 8.0.0 there is no sign of any script-only stacks.

AND, in the light of that maybe I am better hacking 8.0.0 and HIDING widgets and all references to them ???

Although the IDE takes a quantum leap in size because of widgets.

Any decision I make depends on what happens in the next 20 minutes . . .

Having 'stolen' the revstandalonesettings.8.rev stack from the LC 8.0.0 package and renamed it to revstandalonesettings.rev it LOADS and allows me to set a 64-bit Mac build: but, presumably, at the moment, won't produce a 64-bit standalone:
- -
I will attempt a build, but do NOT expect anything.
- -
No surprises there.

AND swapping the Mac engines did not cut the mustard either.

Paraphrasing your quote with artistic license here, but:

richmond62 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 5:58 pm In ... 8.0.0.. the IDE takes a quantum leap in size because of widgets.

Widgets - not overly keen on them. If this started to creep in around LC8, that would have been in 2016 according to the release notes. Apple meanwhile was phasing the term 'widgets' out of it's OS by then, having tried to make them a 'feature' 4 years ago, with Mac OS Lion. By the time 10.9 Mavericks rolled around, they were dropping support for them.

Likewise, around 2012 - Widgets were all the rage with Microsoft too in Windows 8. These had largely disappeared in Windows 10 in 2015.

What I'm suggesting, is that the term 'widgets' is a bit outdated and probably needs to go away. I wonder if the default option on the tools palette could be to have this section hidden. Is everyone okay with that? Does anyone actually use it?

Plus they look damn ugly. Although I plan to do something about that when I have loads of time free, and Illustrator open in front of me.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 6:07 pm AND swapping the Mac engines did not cut the mustard either.

Weird idea, but hear me out.
I'm wondering if simply changing the settings in the standalonesettings is just giving you the checkbox.
This might mean nothing to the standalone builder that actually builds the application, as it's not aware of the 64-bit preference.

So, is there anything in app/tools/Toolset/libraries/ * saveasstandalone * or anything like that which also needs editing to make aware of the 64-bit option?

(I don't know, as don't have a copy of version 8 at hand, and am not on the mac at the moment).

Thanks for the suggestion.

1. Made me look a 'right banana' as thought livecodescript things did not exist that far back.

2. What IS odd is that the Mac engine in 8.0.0 is called x86-32, yet it builds a 64-bit Mac build AND does not have a 'blocked' symbol over its icon.

THIS is from the 714 version:
- -
BUT: copying over from 8.0.0 we get closer:
- -
Obviously the difficulty is going to be to identify WHICH files are missing.

Yes, definitely getting closer.
It would be too much to ask for it to print a list of required files.
Working back the other way, there must be a trigger for it to show that message... so, what triggers that message to appear?
If that can be traced back, then you might be able to find what files it's checking for and failing to find... maybe.

Detective hat on, haha

The Message Watcher told me 'nuffin'.