Xojo: King of the Workarounds for their own bugs

21

I don’t think I was defending them and i’ve bitched enough on the forums about the issues we have and the ever decreasing level of quality.

I must admit I have never used Web 1.0 or Web 2.0 so cannot really comment on them. I do know that without client side methods (which things like Omnis Studio were doing 10+ years ago) it doesn’t seem like a good solution for any kind of web app.

Maybe I misunderstood why this thread was created. I just got the impression that its only purpose was to laugh at Xojo because of the memory leak.

22

I think he has some legacy Xojo code to support - or eventually port

23

the purpose is to attempt to get Xojo to admit there is a problem and fix it instead of glossing over it

2 Likes
24

Absolutely not! Once again, I was in disbelief of the proposed solution. A memory leak is a serious thing and nothing to laugh about so Xojo should take this seriously as their whole Web platform(s) succeed or fail on something like that. We all have a story how a ‘workaround’ becomes a permanent ‘solution’ with Xojo if nobody rattles the cage a bit.

3 Likes
25

They took it seriously: I was five times wining about it and they found the right solution: thay banned me!

26

I imagine bitching about it on this forum won’t achieve that.

27

Doublespeak AND you don’t use Web. So why are you posting here?

Just to bitch about bitching? :roll_eyes:

28

Hal… sounds like someone has ordered a pitcher of Cherry Kool-aid

2 Likes
29

I fully understand how serious memory leaks are. Our systems run 24/7 in print production environments so a crash due to a memory leak can cause serious backlogs.

We all know that Xojo aren’t going to fix Web 1.0 issues so the proposed solution no matter how bad you think it is is better than no solution at all.

The leak of course should be fixed in Web 2.0

30

Oh this forum gets read by them & others who feed it back
Heck @alyssa has an account here even

2 Likes
31

maybe they need to write a retraction to

1 Like
32

It’s supported unless you need support.

2 Likes
33

Sorry @s7g2vp2 it isn’t even a solution. It is nothing to work with. Professional programming needs professional Environments. If somebody like Xojo is not delivering this to their customers they should stop with it at the end. Maybe I am wrong but Xojo was the worst IDE and Language I ever used: nothing works like it is supposed to and if we will do a World Series of needed Workarounds Xojo will win in all categories. There is no sustainability, there is no reliability, there is no real usability. Only thing there is: Promises. Like Android coming Soon for years now. Sorry. I can not understand what your claim should be.

34

Maybe.
It does appear like they are willing to fix browser related issues (ie: front end Javascript code) but not anything related to the Xojo framework / compiler which I imagine fixing this memory leak would require.
I guess people will find out when a browser update breaks their apps.

35

I agree. I understand that blog post was written to cool things down a bit and do some damage control after their initial release. But it has given a lot of people false hope which is backfiring hard now. They sometimes seem to forget there are real businesses behind the licenses they sell…

1 Like
36

I’m not claiming anything.

Web 1.0 is dead so the only solution to keep systems running is to use horrible workarounds like what was proposed.

37

That is NOT correct… that is not the ONLY solution, there are many alternatives, some of which a number of previouse Xojo Web clients have migrated to…

38

Lets just say that I DO think they could fix a framework bug
They just arent, or wont, for their own reasons

39

I did mean keeping their Web 1.0 system running.

Rewriting in another language is not normally achieved overnight so the alternative would be to just let it die when the app ran out of memory.

40

Someone, I dont recall who, wrote and said IF you are thinking about “porting” your web 1.0 app to web 2.0 then you might a swell look at rewriting it in something else that has a better track record as far as bug fixes, being bug free, robustness, scalability etc

A move from web 1.0 to 2.0 is a rewrite - not a port - for most users
Moving to a system you already know has bugs & issues, some significant, doesnt make a lot of sense

I tend to agree

Ages ago I wrote java apps for a “web app” and java scales very nicely
It has few bugs
And it has a huge user community and tons of add ons and libraries you can get

There are others like PHP
And I’m sure there are others

2 Likes