Word of mouth HAS a cost
Heck ask perplexity or Claude or any of the AI’s if Xojo is a robust stable platform
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-xojo-a-robust-stable-mostly-sVGiG7nRRXuCWDwv9FAk6Q
Basically they give the answer as NO
1 Like
AS I SAID: THE IDEA BEHIND IS BRILLIANT. But the development, bugmanagement, qualitymanagement, marketing, sales and the management are not the right way to keep a project like that in an acceptable quality level.
Looking on this we will always reach the same point: nu quality and no reliability.
2 Likes
ChatGPT gives perhaps the MOST charitable answer so far
Of note
- Xojo is generally stable, especially for less complex applications
1 Like
Reminds me of the infamous Ford memo about the Pinto.
1 Like
I understand that trying to fix EVERY last bug is an expensive proposition
I dont believe anyone has said fix every last one
But there are, according to THEIR system, > 300 BUGs that havent been reviewed
THAT is infuriating
Some are 8 years old and still need review ?
That really seems to cast serious doubt on Geoffs assertion they have some one review them when they hit 2 years old
Either admit there isnt enough information to close them and close them or do something about them
THIS was probably the biggest failing we had when I worked there
We left far to many to sit
There were LOTS of bugs with no information, not reproducible, and we should have just closed them saying so
Although that often garnered fury from the reporter if the stack trace doesnt tell the dev enough to make any changes to correct the issue what else CAN you do ?
3 Likes
Damned good read
Process process process
2 Likes
Yes, a great read, similar to one I read back in the day.
From the article:
And that is precisely the point – you can’t have people freelancing their way through software code that flies aspaceship, and then, with peoples lives depending on it, try to patch it once its in orbit.
Hello, Boeing? 
1 Like
Boeing has done what they all try to: reduce costs for Software Development. And they have done a secind thing what you should never do: the same persons which wrote Software were also developing the risk management behind. Result was thr not really working System for the flight position control. All of us know: that’s dagerous.
A system like this Xojo is driving also. Not in India (but it ws not depending on India development what happened with Boeing). Searching your own Bugs in your own code is nearly impossible. The best is: if you decide a functionality by design and this decision isn’t a good idea you may never come to the conclusion that the idea behind is bad!
That’s why decisions like this are often not the best ones. Not for Xojo. Not for Boeing.
1 Like
For Boeing, the Starliner bugs first manifested on the first test flight, when the craft didn’t know what time it was. At the time, I remember a Boeing spokesperson saying that all would have been well had it been crewed, because a human would have caught the error. My thought was to wonder what kind of company would have put people in the thing.
The entire problem was manifested in a horrible risk management. When we do developments in medical environment we need for all security advises always redundant security. Means: if we rely the life of a human on a sensor system we need always two sensors for this. That as a resut of risk management while we have to look on the situation: what will be happened if one sensor is giving up? As a result the human connected to the device could be harmed or even killed. So we have to implement redundant systems.
This is the same in Aircraft standards, militry standards, naval standards and so on Boeing decided to do this processes different. They decided that the developer of the software does also the risk management and will not be controlled within this process.
For me a situation I can’t get how this could be. ISO 31000 is the standard used for aircraft industries and many others for risk management. Reading this standard leads to a functioning risk management. This was not fullfilled by Boeing. And that was a fundamental error. people got harmed and killed.
Simple example:
This sensor registers the angle of attack of an airplane. There should be (following to the manufacturer) 4 of them registering the angle so it can be controlled by software if all sensors are delivering the same data and if not which ones delivering the same data and will be used in that case.
mcas used only one of them. The problem: they can be blocked from ice or something like that. Or one can be defect. Depending on the position it can be also so that there are situations the sensor can not deliver correct data.
Means: this sensor has a high risk. So it is needed to have redundant control. The Boeing Software used exactly ONE of this sensors to register the angle of attack. While this System was added in the middle of development they did not controled this with their risk management. So they decided that it works and that’s it. A few hundret people are dead from exactly that error.
This cultur of blinding out risks and not correcting that in front I know exactly. Xojo is not going a different way. As they are not controlling the risks they can not even see that there is an error in their development stack.
Oh, don’t get me started on the 737 Max. Its problems go way beyond software–in a nutshell, jury-rigging a 737 airframe instead of going clean-sheet. My opinions on this have even caused friction with a friend who works for Boeing (he’s an engineer, but I cast blame on the “suits”.)
Edit: the software in question was even in response to the design compromises.
1 Like
Yes and that shows the entire problem of Boeings devstack.
1 Like
You’re talking about new users that don’t come into this forum, of course. Wondering how many they are.
1 Like
And its still damn good. We work around our bugs. SO net net its worth it for us.
That being said: Xojo should have bean a billion dollar product. But is run like a flower shop not an enterprise.
5 Likes
It would never be a billion dollar product and it has not the potential for a billion dollar product even if it was bug free. It is - and that will never change - a niche product. The programs are slow compared to C++ or Java or C#. The ecosystem around is poor. It has not the needed capabilities to write professional mobile apps and the WebApps are something to play with let’s say not more than 250 concurrent users. That is not what you need today.
Xojo is a brilliant system for advanced citizen devs which are in the need of more functionality than the low- and no-code products have. That’s what it is and you will not change this even if you are in love with it. But for this it could be really good.
There are many bugs you can work around. But also some you can’t. And exactly that is a big problem. Do not understand me wrong, for fast prototypes for example it is a nice tool. But for production use with big data amounts it is self killing.
If they would follow the Idea behind consequently there would be no problem: it could be a professional usable product then. But they have not done this. You can’t compare its functionality with professional toolchains at all.
And also there is a fundamental reason why the company is running like a flower shop: because there is not the needed potential of this product to maintain it like it would be necessary for professional use. Xojo has no chance in case of mobile Apps compared with Kotlin, Flutter/Dart or comparable tools. It has no chance in case of web apps compared to for example vaadin. It is far away from high performance compared to C#, Java and so on.
But to write not that complex apps, internal programs and stuffs like that it is a great tool. If there would not be the collection of Bugs. And on that day you run into one you can’t work around you are at the end of its possibilities. Also that you should know.
Or as new users looking for a tool are apt to do, ask ChatGPT for its opinion…
That said, I can’t imagine that the CEO coming out and saying “we’re ok with lots of bugs” is necessarily going to be good advertising. It’s one thing to put up with it once you’ve already spent the money, discovered the bugs, but decide it is a good enough trade, and quite another to hear the product is full of bugs before you pay.
2 Likes
Boeing violated every rule of good engineering for the sake of profit. At least Xojo explicitly states that their software is unfit for developing critical-task software.
3 Likes
Well you might see in us a bunch of frustrated guys…
At least, we’re not so frustrated and linger in TOF, posting insulting “ad hominem” messages.
We managed to left the ship. You’re still standing on Deck trying to arrange the deckchairs in Bristol fashion, ignoring that the ship is already halfway sunken…
Farewell!
4 Likes
Ahoi Captain. That’s the way they do it. While Xojo bans away every critical voice if and when it becomes loud the TOF is a BubbleGum forum. Shiny colors and much bling bling with the VIP lounge of users which are the loved ones. At the top is the owner of the ship which has no problem if it will sink while he is collecting now the money he needs until retirement. Not so long period until retirement helps definitely. Pumping out the rest of money helps definitely.
3 Likes
That is true. The stipid way of how a wonderfull tool with huge potential was relegated to barely existing is frustrating.
Most people here love xojo. But, just look at this thread:
1.0k !!! This shows that users really want a change in here, but as said in the other forum MANY MANY times, bug solving is so rooten that users just dont care about making reports or popularity campaings for a bug to be fixed. Any new users makes the report, see the bug there for years and never came back. Even a company new to xojo saw those problems at a glance.
What the CEO has to say?? I KNOW BETTER. 
Most people here love xojo, but dont like the stupid way it has being managed.
3 Likes