OpenXTalk Forums

richmond62 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 2:21 pm . . and it is so typical of Apple to ride roughshod like this without considering anyone's requirements for backward compatibility.

They are the company who are changing their underlying architecture more frequently than any other. Microsoft still relies heavily on 32bit programs (windows 11 still has 32bit elements buried deep within). Linux still actively supports 32bit - while also making huge strides into ARM support.

Apple would say that they've arguably supported Intel processors from 2009 until 2023 (I'm guessing they'll phase this out altogether in 2024/2025 after whatever comes after Sonoma). Not a bad run to plug away at an architecture for 14 years, but I know what you mean. Apple stuff isn't cheap, and it hurts when they force users to buy new or be left behind. They are a business and didn't start making the money they currently have while they had hardware longevity in mind.

Not that I'm defending them. I hate ewaste, and continued profiteering when it's as blatant as the continued upward cycle Apple users find themselves in. With the only rationale given is 'to drive innovation'

This likely explains the continued push of 'cloud-based solutions' (even though I hate the term).
I also absolutely and unequivocally despise the thought of having to be online to use a particular program, with no offline mode.

The only positive thing I can say about these cloud-hosted programs is that they are architecture agnostic to a large degree (shifting the responsibility of supporting architecture onto whoever develops the browser). This is the entire business model of Chromebooks after all. And if one browser drops support, another is waiting in the wings to take over. These browser wars have driven compatibility and a push to support long-dropped standards for decades after they are abandoned *except where people move on for good reason - (such as with Flash).

The third option (as I'm sure you know - where's the egg sucking emoji); most programs now seem like they are desktop variants, but are actually just being rendered locally on the desktop in a web GUI or self-contained window. So not needing an internet connection necessarily. While this approach is slower than native C for example, it's a way to keep running when architectures change because all you've got to do it change your web viewer container.

Makes sense why Paul has looked into ways around this with emscripten and the like. Although there are also plenty of technologies out there that either are too simplistic, whilst also being restrictive (scratch), or just plain do not cut the mustard for an xTalk wrapper.

I also absolutely and unequivocally despise the thought of having to be online to use a particular program, with no offline mode.

Living, as I do in "the second world" and well aware of what the "third world" is like, being dependent on having internet is another way where, despite all the hot air floating around about "levelling up", the "first world" maintains its hegemony.

Do NOT get me wrong: I'd far rather quasi-democratic countries like the USA and Canada than military juntas and one-party states.

BUT, I do believe that any chance of any sort of democratisation is going to be slowed down by making access to an awful lot of things dependent on decent internet access.

Let's imagine, for a moment, a building in Gaberone, Botswana, with a shed load of 3rd hand computers and some reasonable monitors [say 1024x786], an electricity supply that manages about 8 - 12 hours a day, and no internet . . .

Well, if I were wanting to give "young sprogs with hungry minds" something there it would NOT be dependent on internet access in any way whatsoever.

----

Now we well know that both Apple and Microsoft don't give a flying 'fudge' about kids like that; and quite a few of the Linux distributors don't either [pace Canonical's dropping of a 32-bit distro in 2018] despite all the razzmatazz.

-----

Of course, parts of the Open Source 'movement', like schismatic gurus from some cult, have lost sight of Hairy Stallman's main point [which he has NOT helped with his increasingly shrill, dogmatic shrieking].

----

That doesn't mean 'WE' [discuss what 'WE' means in 500,000 words or less] have to lose sight of that.

I am NOT a communist, far, far from it; I am not even a socialist; in fact I am fairly right-wing.

BUT, I do also believe that, a bit like pencils and paper, there should NOT be a huge financial hurdle to jump over to get started.

If I give you a pencil and paper, and show you how to write and draw, and then you don't use that opportunity, don't come round to my place asking for food: BUT, I do want to give you the pencil, the paper, and at least rudimentary instructions to get you started.

richmond62 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 5:16 pm ..something there it would NOT be dependent on internet access in any way whatsoever.

Exactly, and this hits the nail on the head.
So imagine something like a java app (although probably not a java app for many many reasons), but rather than being web-based like most java programs started off, they then began to become containerised inside a wrapper. So when you double-click the program, it's running a self-hosted instance of itself. (the same way of thinking behind appimages, wineskin wrappers, electron apps and so on).

Of course there are lots of dead-ends to vanish down investigating these routes. Plenty of white rabbits to follow that will lead to nowhere.
This isn't a new thing though. There's always been a lot of things that initially showed promise, but in the end were too full of limitations. Realbasic was a good example of that. Initially promising the world, but then becoming too wrapped up in itself and commercial for an ever-shrinking user base.

Whatever wrapper used to bring an xTalk language to the desktop (and other platforms if needed), it'll need some kind of interpreter. Something that can talk and walk xTalk, while thinking Rust, Lua or whatever.

Maybe I'm stupid [OK, I'm not: that's a turn of phrase], but what is the point of quoting my previous post in its entirety with no following remarks?

Ah: you got a bit mixed up and then sorted things out.

Yes, my kids were rinsing my internet connection. (Which is ironic when talking about the scarcity of reliable internet). The irony wasn't lost on me.

"rinsing" your internet.

That's a new use of the word 'rinse' to me: very interesting.

My "kids" are 28 and 31, so off somewhere else with their own internet service providers.

Here, in Bulgaria, in a 'silly' village in the mountains, oddly enough as things go, I have optical internet with no upload or download restrictions for 9 Euros a month.
-

Haha, yes - rinsing, as in "totally wiping out" my internet connection.
I can only dream of such a connection. I'd be lucky to see 40MB/Sec at any given time here.

I suppose I've inadvertently picked up some sayings from the 'yoof' here. My 10 year old is pretty good though, and doesn't seem too influenced by the terms she hears around her (she'll regularly ask if something is in the dictionary before accepting it).

It's a bit like the management above me, when they talk about 'noise'. As in:
[name of member of staff] "has been making a lot of noise around this issue".

In other words, they've got a relevant issue that requires further troubleshooting and one that is impacting their teaching. (yes, I'm IT Support by trade). It's not 'noise' as they call it.

Anyway, I digress.
I'm hoping that we can use some kind of wrapper that is supported in all major desktops (and across all intel and ARM architectures) with a widely-accepted, common programming language between all three. I mention Lua, as it's commonly supported in newer Mac versions already - and is simple to add to Linux (and even Windows *I assume, although I haven't checked.)

So, here I am back from Smolyan in front of my Macintosh machines.

Typing this on my donated 2015 iMac while upgrading my 2018 Mac Mini to MacOS 14 'Sonoma' RC . . . we shall see what it makes of LC 963 and so on.

This "Monterey Jack" machine is super [always liked aged cheese], but I shall be well fried if the Mac Mini "doesn't" re LC 963, and may revert to macOS 13.
- -
This backs up my theory that Apple have got their marketing all wrong: that cheese is fantastic: so why didn't they leverage it?

No: No joy, I am afraid.

And this thing requires at least 32 characters,

Certainly if the 'final vinyl' of macOS 'Snowman' DOESN'T re 961, I'll be reverting to macOS 13 . . . 13, lucky for some, obviously.

Presumably we are going to have more of Craig F poncing around like a teenager again, telling us about how great macOS 14 is for the Paris Hiltons of this world in what is totally incorrectly termed a 'developer conference' before the next best 'thang' is upon us.

Thank both the good lord above and the bad lord below (who are probably drinking coffee together and laughing themselves silly at us poor mortals) that my income does NOT depend on either MacOS or Mac ARM machines.

The very good ACEPC micro-computers (plug, plug) that run Xubuntu 64-bit in my language school are my main target, happily running even some standalones I churned out from the RR 2.2.1 for Linux given out by NOVELL and Stomfi about 18 years ago.

Judging by what I've observed with MacOS 11 and 12, I think Catalina (10.15) is probably the last version of MacOS that I'm compatible with.

Personally I am not an "ever upward and onwards" addict, but, sadly, if we stand any chances to attract any users than the half-a-dozen we seem to at the moment, OXT/LC-reborn/Whatever has to be also "ever upward and onwards"; or, at the very least, capable of working on macOS 14 (and, inevitably with macOS 15 'Large Testicles' (that's an unincorporated township in California), which will probably WHEN Apple makes that ARM processor only AND stops the capability to run INTEL apps on ARM Macs.

In Scotland we have not sunk so low: but we do have the 'Paps of Jura'.
- -
Even though Craig F has fathered 4 children, those would give him a run for his money.

Right, apart from the job of testing OpenXTalk Lite in MacOS 12, I feel saddened.

This is only going to make sense to anyone who is an old-skool mac user, but who was in charge of the audio soundset?

What I mean by that is you press the shortcut CMD (Apple) and Delete.
You press the shortcut to empty the bin, or you copy a file to ones place or another...

Why has the soundset been replaced by what can best be described as the punch and kick sounds from Street Fighter, with a bit of Tron thrown in?

Seriously, did they get daft punk to make these changes?

Which got me thinking: If Apple can make what seems like a subtle change to them, but ruins the experience for all their users, I'm keen to make any changes to OXT into options that aren't hard coded.

This way, if someone really dislikes something, at least there will be an option for it.
So with this in mind, I'm going to try and get my head around the preferences stack and see if there's any possibility of slipping in options for colour schemes.

That Prefs stack is a right stinker [probably the reason it has almost not been touched since about RunRev 4.0], if you can wrestle the thing to the ground and rejig it that would be super.

For instance, when I dephlogisticated the thing re upgrades I could NOT work out a way to introduce a new button or image.

I always turn off the sounds as they annoy me: so, yes, the IDE should be as flexible as possible to cater for different people's tastes.

NO: the latest RC candidate for macOS 14 'Sonoma' also does not run LC 9.6.3

richmond62 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 22, 2023 4:11 pm NO: the latest RC candidate for macOS 14 'Sonoma' also does not run LC 9.6.3

Here's a strange thought, but are there any intel x64 "Livecode Players" available?
I wonder if they run under Sonoma. If they do, it may be easier to debug those rather than full-fat LC / OXT.

So, the 'Final Vinyl' of MacOS 14 'Sonoma' slipped out like a thief in the night [NO Mac 'developer conf.],

Obviously Craig F's hairstylist was having an 'off' day.

and I am reliably informed that the last beta version (which I installed the other day) is the same:

"If you installed the 2nd release candidate, build 23A344, there's nothing for you to upgrade to as that release candidate was what was released to the public yesterday."

So, NO: LC 963 or previous will do anything on MacOS 14 (and, presumably, subsequent releases of the MacOS), and I have timetabled October 15th for my attempt to get my Mac Mini back to MacOS 13 'Ventura' . . . Blast!