Revolution IS rock-solid

[hershrev]

On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, at 04:50 AM, opus.species at wanadoo.fr 
wrote:

> A discussion started about the "rock-solidity" of Revolution
>
>>>> Scott Rossi wrote:
>>>> While I can't say I've pushed the engine as hard as the combined 
>>>> talent of
>>>> this list, in my experience the engine's performance has been 
>>>> exceptional.
>
>>> When the general assumption among the community is that the engine 
>>> is perfect, then bug reports are considered spurious.
>>> ...
>>> The best way to make the engine rock-solid is to knock over the idol.
>>> Dar Scott
>
>> Nobody said perfect. Rock-solid does not mean bug-free. No program 
>> that has some complexity ever is. But MetaCard crashed barely ever (I 
>> found a couple ways to crash it but I was pushing it), most features 
>> worked as expected, and bugs were addressed in a reasonable time. I 
>> don't think we are trying to idealize/idolize MC. It was not perfect. 
>> But we want Rev to reach its level and better.
>> One significantly different thing about Rev is that not all 
>> features/functionality are implemented in the engine. And Rev team 
>> added a whole bunch of new stuff on top or next to the old stuff 
>> (when the two were developed in parallel). And Rev's IDE is so much 
>> more complex and introduces a number of kinks and funky behaviors 
>> that go away when it is turned off.
>> Robert
on closeField
   set the caseSensitive to false
   find field "Find Field" in  field "list field"
   focus on field "find field"
end closeField

on exitField
   set the caseSensitive to false
   find field "Find Field" in  field "list field"
   focus on field "find field"
end exitField
  Now when I press a button "close this stack" the application crashes.

>
> For people new to this list, i mean that it is important to be clear 
> on the topic "can they be confident in deciding to use revolution for 
> a professional project".
>
> When i produce cd-rom, i use Revolution 8 to 12 hours a day for weeks. 
> "Rock-solidity" is a key feature for me.
>
> First short and after longer.
>
> SHORT
> For me Revolution 2.12 is Rock-solid and i can rely on it for days and 
> days of work.
> Metacard 2.5 was rock-solid. Revolution 1 was not.
>
> LONG
> When you use a development tools professionaly, there are 4 levels of 
> problems what can arise
> 1) your file is corrupt, all your work since the last incremental 
> backup is lost
> 2) there is an internal bug in the develoment tools forbidding your 
> application to work
> 3) there is a bug between the development tool and then system 
> environment forbidding your application to work
> 4) there are crashes in the development tools, you have sometimes to 
> stop and restart
>
> My findings
>
> 1) about file corruption
> File corruption was frequent in Hypercard and Supercard ; you had to 
> keep incremental backups very often.
> I never had a file corruption neither with metacard nor with 
> revolution.
> OK i still continue top make incremental backups because i am used to, 
> but now it is mainly to prevent an hypothetical failure of my hard 
> drive...
>
> 2) internal bug
> I do not know about any internal bug neither in Metacard nor in 
> revolution. And if one was discovered, i can be confident that it 
> would solved in a very short time.
>
> 3) bug between the development tool and the system
> Metacard was famous for its ability to bug with the video drivers. It 
> was at the time of mc 2.2. At a certain time all these problems 
> disappeared (i believe that it was with mc 2.3 or 2.4 ; i suspect that 
> at this time Scott Raney got new libraries to manage jpeg 
> decompression). For me this bugs belong to the past and i did not meet 
> them for years now.
> Some people on this list reportted bugs in the managment of sockets ; 
> other people use daily sockets without trubble for pop, smtp, ftp...
> On such a new matter it is difficult to say where the problem lie : in 
> Revolution, in the quality of scripts, in the servers...
> There are a lot of discussions on these topics on this list ; open 
> source code is regularily given by successfull developpers.
> I guess that the next release of Revolution will greatly improve 
> socket managment.
>
> 4) crashes of the IDE
> The Revolution 2.12 IDE is for me reasonably solid. Some days i do not 
> crash once ; some days i crash one or two times (in a 8 to 12 hours 
> work-day).
> This is perfectly acceptable for a professional use.
> I program on a Windows XP computer with 512 MO ram. For a professional 
> use it is a minimum. On a lower computer, problem can arise from a 
> short memory if you open Revolution in the same time as media editors, 
> but thats a Windows problem...
> The MC IDE was too ligth for beginners, fine for developpers, poorly 
> documented ; the Rev IDE is suitable for beginners and for 
> developpers, it is well documented. No IDE is perfect but the IDE of 
> revolution is at least as good as the IDE of the other tools in 
> competition.
>
> That was just a testimony
>
> Claude
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>