Let Rev's Light Shine...or Watch It Go Out

[Michael Young]

> On Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 10:01 AM, Rob Cozens wrote:
>
>> For those of us who would rather choose a non-confrontational stance,
>> there is still one thing you can do to fight the legacy of X-Talks
>> prejudice:
>>
>> 	DISPLAY THE MADE WITH RUN REV IMAGE ON EVERY APPLICATION YOU RELEASE!
>>
>> If you run away from the issue and try to hide you applications'
>> roots, your efforts can only work against the long-term success &
>> acceptance of the platform you use to build that application.
>
> I think this is appropriate in the credits of an about box, but not in
> a splash or in main windows in general.  The use of the logo must say,
> "_I_ made this the way _I_ think _my_customers_ need this using the
> best _tool_ I could find, Revolution."  It should not be placed where
> it seems to say "I poked at Revolution and caused it to make this app
> the way it thought it should be made and I had to live within those
> constraints."
>
> Dar Scott
>
This topic goes on and on. Many people have made worthwhile 
observations, but I would like to add my two cents. Perception of RR is 
the key element for me.

I know customers, who can barely operate a word processor, but they 
dictate the tool that the professional developer uses. For example, 
databases are developed in Access despite it being the wrong tool, etc, 
because that is what the customer wants. It is important to get the 
word out that RR is a professional tool. The problem is MacTech may 
present a nice series of RR articles, but the management yahoo 
controlling projects will never see it. This manager may see articles 
in Macworld and their ilk, however. This same manager might notice in a 
bookstore all the VB, etc. books and since there is no RR book on the 
shelf assume it is not an option. (Don't laugh, I know people who have 
selected Filemaker Pro databases simply because there are FMP books in 
the bookstore and they weren't even the developer.)

It is becoming my perception that RR might have been better to use C as 
its programming language then develop a really slick cross platform 
library GUI, etc. At least then the management yahoo could have his 
project done in C and be happy in his ignorance. (I am not sure the 
write emoticon to use here, so choose one that doesn't upset you.) 
Unfortunately, the management decision makers do not understand the 
tools but they have heard that projects should be done in VB, C++, C, 
Java, and etc..

I have used LabVIEW http://www.ni.com/labview/ that has managed to sell 
quite well into its niche despite not being VB/C++/C, but it had 
hardware business to help get the software in the door. For NI the 
hardware provided the platform for LabVIEWs adoption and then it 
actually became a great way to sell hardware, just like Windows 
provides the platform for Microsoft's monopoly in other areas. I do not 
see that RR has a "platform" to make sure that its software gets in the 
door.

I wish I had an answer for the perception problem because I really like 
RR and I would like to see it succeed in the long term, but I don't 
have the answer.

Michael Y

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by CENTRIC INTERNET SERVICES]