Posted 24 February 2003 - 11:33 AM
I don't think so Neill. All developers are quite happy to update their tools when Pro-IV changes. Don't try to tell us that that lack of changes and improvements to Pro-IV over the last 10 years is because people have their own development tools!
'If you want an open developer community why then did you not either contribute to the design and trial of VIP or
create your editor as open source/design. Self-interest pervades!'
Perhaps we should let him finish coding the thing before we grab it and start taking it apart!
Posted 24 February 2003 - 01:31 PM
Perhaps after this poll you could give some examples of real customers telling you exactly why they don't want access to the source.
The customer is always right. (Disclaimer: Unless they are too stupid to comprehend what they are talking about.)
Posted 24 February 2003 - 06:15 PM
Posted 24 February 2003 - 06:21 PM
They are organised much like the original native bootstraps.
Loading a function is done in stages, ie functdef first, then lsdef etc... And then the rest is loaded in the background while the user is able to start editing the function. This makes it very quick and smooth.
As for the saving, I store changes that are made and then when you press the 'save' button or when the 'auto save' time has occurred then I send just the changes. This makes the save extremely quick. It also helps me with the undo/redo feature that I plan to include.
The only 'slowish' bit will be function linkage of the whole system because I will have to search through the function structures for that, but I can work out something better at a later period. I want to get a solid editor out first. Links 'To' will be very quick, but Links 'From' is where I need to do some work.
I have talked to ProIV about VIP a long time ago. I know I am completely against VIP, but that’s because of the way it has been designed. When working on a Windows env. I want it to work like windows, not some bad emulation of it. And quickly and smoothly.
I think that VIP is completely the wrong design and I have communicated this to ProIV LTD on more than one occasion. I did not contribute to the VIP trials because I did not believe in its design. I also wrote a document to ProIV suggesting things to change. And make it work like windows. Most users know how windows work and therefore following the these standards will allow users to learn and use it quicker.
I have not made it open source, but I have talked to others about design and features.
As for 'Self-interest'... I am writing it for 2 reasons, firstly, I believe that ProIV is very powerful and useful, we just need a decent, quick and well written editor making full use of the windows env. and secondly, yes, I would like to make some money out of it
Posted 24 February 2003 - 10:45 PM
We have chosen to use the features within PROIV because it helps both evolve the product and identify any limitations that arise and therefore would limit end user application potential.
Our next phase makes extensive use of activex to provide client side controls more in keeping with windows. This is as a result of listening to user response to the product.
One last point worth mentioning we don't charge for the development environment itself, VIP is not concidered a chargable component. It is developed and maintained by a dedicated team also envolved in client and kernel design. Central to the entire customer network and backed up by a support facility we can provide rapid response to faults.
If you wish to charge for your environment be my guest.
You could always collaborate to generate community benefit. Lets see some activex design modules or some XML language schemas or some technology bridge ideas that could open buisness opportunities and not pretend that a furtune can be made in developer tools.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users