5 Likes
The ‘explanation’ for not supporting multi-core threads:
But we support 6 platforms only one of which is macOS.
2 Likes
I thought it was used as the explanation for letting the Mac framework rot on the vine. Either way it sure showed me the error of my ways. The Mac Framework is exactly how it should be and if they imagined being any different, they’d have done it without my help.
That sure explains Geoff ghosting me after Dana asked him to contact me in response to my public offers to help. Never needed my help in the first place.
It just emphasizes that I need to move on and leave it well alone. if it dies, it is exactly how the CEO believes it should be.
1 Like
Ultimately they don’t have the correct personnel to actually make the changes people want. Geoff is right in that it would be a massive undertaking and, if history is any guide, even if they did it they’d do a half-assed job and it wouldn’t work like developers need. Doesn’t help matters any that Geoff doesn’t really understand why people need these things.
In the long run it’ll be easier if you move on to a language that already has it built in and already supports it. If (a big if) Xojo decided to do something it would take them years to get it working. And since they don’t have a compiler engineer they’d probably have to restart the project 4 or 5 times.
2 Likes
ALL those posts and Geoff only cares about is being embarrassed about how long API 2 took.
Geoff does that a lot… He’ll pick out one little part to reply about while ignoring the over arching topic.
4 Likes
My Opinion for what it is worth.
Now is the time (actually a few years ago) for Xojo Inc to announce that “Xojo” has come to it lifes end, it will continue to be available in its current state for the foreseeable future, and Xojo Inc is proud to announce that all efforts are going towards the complete ground up redesign, rewrite and production of a modern software developement product . Not just an “API3.0”, but a whole new system.
While that is “pie in the sky”, and will never happen, and even if Xojo wanted to it would be 10 years too late.
1 Like
I just got the “Nice reply badge” from the Xojo forum for my post. The Xojo forum also really liked my post about how the Mac framework needed some love earlier.
However I was mistaken and Geoff today reassured me that the Mac Framework is exactly how it should be.
Geoff does the same thing in this post. Geoff just picked out one part of Sam’s post and ignores everything else.
2 Likes
API2 actually lacks of hours and manpower invested…
1 Like
He clearly shows that he’d be quite comfortable with you leaving Xojo and him alone.
2 Likes
While that is obviously not true, Geoff is not totally off base…
IMO Xojo’s reason for existence is being Xplatform, and as such the framework always needs to be designed with being XPlatform in mind…
While it should not be lowest common denominator for each platform, some well thought out compromises do need to be made in the design of the framework as well as modernizing the underpinnings.
But IMO they have essentially frozen the language and framework in time and keep applying bandaids and duct tape to keep it going…
Instead of redoing IDE’s and renaming things that is where they should have concentrated first: on language itself and the framework over the last 10-15 years…
Even if Geoff understood all the needs and issues, he does not have enough or the right resources to do the job right…
And I don’t know if they have enough income to do it even if they had the will.
If they had done these things all along they would have had a better skill set on hand to be able to keep things fresher (without renaming!)…
But where they are now makes it very difficult to do that even if they had the will.
-Karen
2 Likes
Having the IDE AND the language imprisoned together in a proprietary box is a killer feature in a proverbial sense. Even Apple or M$ can’t afford the number of good developers it takes to make a language strive. They open-sourced it and focus on IDEs as their products.
1 Like
The thing I dislike about that statement from him is this statement
There is great benefit to users willing to learn something new and for all the new users who only encounter API 2.
Completely devoid of any sentiment expressed to those whose projects are now getting hit by NOT “updating” to API 2 (because its such a massive task)
In my experience its impossible to intermingle the new Desktop control & API 1 controls & Windows
Its a mess for existing devs with existing projects
2 Likes
It is a very clear ‘I couldn’t care less about you, your codebase and your business. Bugger off, will you!’
1 Like
I have to admit that I’m surprised in that thread NO ONE has said gee it’d be nice to be able to have my web app listen for connections, spin up new workers and hand them the connected tcp socket to serve
Kind of how apache handles web servers
You cant FORK and pass over open sockets pipes etc so making a web server that worked this way, and might be more scaleable, isnt going to happen
First we need workers for Web, no?
More than 1 year ago: #68892 - Add workers to Web…
Argument for GPL Xojo as fast as possible before the few run it down…
1 Like
I doubt that would make much difference at this point. They’ve run off many (most?) of the developers that cared enough to work on it for free.
2 Likes
It is debatable if there much , if any, benefit to most (but not all) API 2 changes IMO.
-Karen
2 Likes
I have yet to see any - in part because I’ve used the product for so long
Consistency in event & property naming - NEVER gave me any issues
I learned what I needed, more or less once, and moved on and when I needed to check something I actually read the docs ( I know shock !)
Autocomplete gives me more grief now with the prefixes. To get to anything useful in a desktop app now I HAVE to type “desktop” before the tab.
I’ll stick with the old controls as they work MUCH better in autocomplete
Xojo created a problem with all the dumb prefixing
3 Likes