v0.99 (which might be the last version I create based on the LCC engine)
You are now suffering from the same "slight aberration" that Paul is . . .
When "That person in Edinburgh" made his extremely tactless announcement (although, having seen how he operates, both virtually, and in the flesh, I was not totally surprised in HOW he did it: I was surprised in that he did it: as my Granny from Dundee would have put it, "As much couth as a cow.") about 2 and a bit years ago, a few people began making noises about a continuation open source version, and there was no mention of a lot of (frankly) cruft that has actually served to slow down the realisation of this subsequently.
A version 1.0 that is 99% solid (ever heard of 100% solid software?) would be what was initially discussed, running with the current engines.
Yes, we all know that with the likes of Tim Cook, and to a lesser extent Tamas Nadella (err, sorry, "Satya"), we are running towards an ever-retreating finishing line: and with the advent of Mac silicon that has become vaguely pressing (and I use the word "vaguely" deliberately), and in an ideal world (which we do not inhabit) we'd have an OXT that ran on Haiku OS, Morphos, RISC 5, and "Uncle Charlie's Personal Seriously Wonky OS".
Of course the engines are 'frozen': they are what was inherited from LiveCode: and until a clever, clever person with the will, the time, the inclination, and a semi-decent income that is not dependent on their actual work comes along, or "Uncle Kev" suddenly seeing some screwy light from the East and lobbing us a Mac Silicon engine that we can integrate into what we have; that's what we've got.
As schools world-wide, for largely historical and budget considerations, run computers running various versions of Windows, about 80% (random figure pulled from the back of my head) of home users run Windows, a very large number of developers use either Windows or Linux unless they are specifically developing for Macintosh, while it would be all very jolly indeed to have a Mac Silicon engine, this really should not be anywhere near the top of anyone's shopping list.
I don't see Paris Hilton doing any software development anytime soon: or any of the other fashionistas who 'sport' Macs under their oxters like those disgusting little' yappy dogs.
-
- Paris-Hilton-Out-And-About-For-Talking-On-Her-Cell-Phone-And-Carrying-Her-Dog-Tinkerbell-On-The-Street-Los-Angeles_db7c2d57-ad1e-4fae-a421-0a8d26f04faf_1.8a001b7d8b2167ddac8c38f102ed2401.jpeg (39.96 KiB) Viewed 2211 times
-
The recent stuff about using other engines to run OXT on is just ANOTHER distraction that detracts from getting a version of OXT "out" that, while possibly not being any better than LC 963 (why does it need to be?), can serve as a jumping-off platform for any future development: or, can "just sit there" as a way for developers and end-users to have something that is not connected to LiveCode (the company) to develop whatever they wish with.
At that point (and NOT until that point) we can start advertising the thing (something that seems to have been overlooked, and raises the possibility that OXT could turn into a coterie fetish between 2 members of a duopoly) and TRYING to attract users.
How the FF (Flying Fudge) am I going to write some article for an educators' magazine that has a half-cock beta version at the end of it (and, frankly if you want to call 0.99 1.0 instead that would be enough to make the difference)?
If people hereabouts really care about the LC Open Source thing and keeping it afloat then all efforts should be devoted to pushing out a usable, easily installable version AND promoting the thing like buggery!