Proposed stack name changes for the MC IDE

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposed stack name changes for the MC IDE

Ken Ray
Hey all,

I just gave a presentation last weekend at the LiveCode Live event on the MC
IDE and one of the things I brought up was the fact that a great benefit to
the MC IDE vs the LiveCode IDE is that it really tries to "get out of the
way of the developer."

And although it currently does a pretty good job of that, there are a few
places that IMHO still need to be changed. The two that immediately come to
mind are the Preferences and Properties stacks, both of which prevent you as
a developer from being able to name *your* stacks "Preferences" or
"Properties", and there are probably other stack name conflicts as well.

For the next build of the IDE, I'd like to change the IDE stack names to
have an "mc" prefix (like "mcPreferences"), but since this affects anything
that runs as a plugin, etc., I wanted to bring it up for discussion first.

What are your thoughts on this? Good idea? Bad idea? ...?


Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software, Inc.
Email: [hidden email]
Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/



_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed stack name changes for the MC IDE

xtalkprogrammer
Hi Ken,

Using a prefix implies that there is the possibility of extending the MC IDE in the future and a potential getting-in-the-way. This is something we don't want.

I think that simply calling these stacks "MetaCard Something" makes a friendlier impression. People who need to deal with plug-ins probably already have found a solution (e.g. checking the effective filename).

Although it isn't a big deal, I think that using a prefix like "mc" is very RunRev-like and not the right approach. Since the number of IDE stacks is supposed to stay at a minimum, a prefix should be unnecessary. If we ever need something like this, it would be nice to come up with a really clever and friendly solution.

--
Best regards,

Mark Schonewille

Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553

New: Download the Installer Maker Plugin 1.6 for LiveCode here http://qery.us/ce

On 30 jun 2011, at 15:33, Ken Ray wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I just gave a presentation last weekend at the LiveCode Live event on the MC
> IDE and one of the things I brought up was the fact that a great benefit to
> the MC IDE vs the LiveCode IDE is that it really tries to "get out of the
> way of the developer."
>
> And although it currently does a pretty good job of that, there are a few
> places that IMHO still need to be changed. The two that immediately come to
> mind are the Preferences and Properties stacks, both of which prevent you as
> a developer from being able to name *your* stacks "Preferences" or
> "Properties", and there are probably other stack name conflicts as well.
>
> For the next build of the IDE, I'd like to change the IDE stack names to
> have an "mc" prefix (like "mcPreferences"), but since this affects anything
> that runs as a plugin, etc., I wanted to bring it up for discussion first.
>
> What are your thoughts on this? Good idea? Bad idea? ...?


_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Kind regards,

Drs. Mark Schonewille

Economy-x-Talk Consultancy and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
Facebook: http://facebook.com/LiveCode.Beginner
KvK: 50277553
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed stack name changes for the MC IDE

Richard Gaskin
In reply to this post by Ken Ray
On 6/30/11 6:33 AM, Ken Ray wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I just gave a presentation last weekend at the LiveCode Live event on the MC
> IDE and one of the things I brought up was the fact that a great benefit to
> the MC IDE vs the LiveCode IDE is that it really tries to "get out of the
> way of the developer."
>
> And although it currently does a pretty good job of that, there are a few
> places that IMHO still need to be changed. The two that immediately come to
> mind are the Preferences and Properties stacks, both of which prevent you as
> a developer from being able to name *your* stacks "Preferences" or
> "Properties", and there are probably other stack name conflicts as well.
>
> For the next build of the IDE, I'd like to change the IDE stack names to
> have an "mc" prefix (like "mcPreferences"), but since this affects anything
> that runs as a plugin, etc., I wanted to bring it up for discussion first.
>
> What are your thoughts on this? Good idea? Bad idea? ...?

I like it for several reasons:

1. "Preferences" is such a common name that not changing the IDE's stack
name is too likely to result in conflict.

2. The proposed prefix solution follows RunRev's convention, long
established and well understood.

3. It's simple to implement, and as a volunteer project I appreciate the
impact on your time.

Thanks for taking that on -

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
  LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv

_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed stack name changes for the MC IDE

Ken Ray
In reply to this post by xtalkprogrammer
> Using a prefix implies that there is the possibility of extending the MC IDE
> in the future and a potential getting-in-the-way. This is something we don't
> want.

I clearly agree that the "getting in the way" is something we don't want,
but can you clarify what you mean by "extending the MC IDE"?
 
> Although it isn't a big deal, I think that using a prefix like "mc" is very
> RunRev-like and not the right approach. Since the number of IDE stacks is
> supposed to stay at a minimum, a prefix should be unnecessary. If we ever need
> something like this, it would be nice to come up with a really clever and
> friendly solution.

I'd *love* for there to be less IDE stacks - currently there are *70*
substacks of the Metacard Menu Bar stack. Granted that some of these are old
copies that can be deleted or are for dialogs to set really old settings, or
are copies of the Script Editor, but without some significant changes it's
not going to get much smaller.

I think the issue is that until RunRev creates namespaces inside LC, the IDE
stacks should be renamed to get out of the way of the developer, at least
the more common ones like Preferences and Properties. The only issue with
only renaming *some* stacks is it becomes inconsistent, which is also a
pain.

The good thing though is that unless one is working on tools to manipulate
the IDE itself, they shouldn't encounter the internal stack names of the IDE
stacks very often, so it may not matter what they get called as long as they
get out of the way.

Just my 2 cents,


Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software, Inc.
Email: [hidden email]
Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/



_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed stack name changes for the MC IDE

J. Landman Gay
In reply to this post by Ken Ray
On 6/30/11 8:33 AM, Ken Ray wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I just gave a presentation last weekend at the LiveCode Live event on the MC
> IDE and one of the things I brought up was the fact that a great benefit to
> the MC IDE vs the LiveCode IDE is that it really tries to "get out of the
> way of the developer."
>
> And although it currently does a pretty good job of that, there are a few
> places that IMHO still need to be changed. The two that immediately come to
> mind are the Preferences and Properties stacks, both of which prevent you as
> a developer from being able to name *your* stacks "Preferences" or
> "Properties", and there are probably other stack name conflicts as well.
>
> For the next build of the IDE, I'd like to change the IDE stack names to
> have an "mc" prefix (like "mcPreferences"), but since this affects anything
> that runs as a plugin, etc., I wanted to bring it up for discussion first.
>
> What are your thoughts on this? Good idea? Bad idea? ...?

I think it's a good idea and will definitely solve the problem. I also
don't mind the "mc" prefix, since mchome, mctools, and mchelp already
use it in stackfile names and the consistency would be a plus, I'd
think. We're all pretty much used to it by now.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     [hidden email]
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com

_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed stack name changes for the MC IDE

Björnke von Gierke
In reply to this post by Ken Ray
I think what Mark meant was not to use "mc" but instead "MetaCard" as a  whole word. to make it even more obvious.

On 30 Jun 2011, at 16:49, Ken Ray wrote:

>> Using a prefix implies that there is the possibility of extending the MC IDE
>> in the future and a potential getting-in-the-way. This is something we don't
>> want.
>
> I clearly agree that the "getting in the way" is something we don't want,
> but can you clarify what you mean by "extending the MC IDE"?
>
>> Although it isn't a big deal, I think that using a prefix like "mc" is very
>> RunRev-like and not the right approach. Since the number of IDE stacks is
>> supposed to stay at a minimum, a prefix should be unnecessary. If we ever need
>> something like this, it would be nice to come up with a really clever and
>> friendly solution.
>
> I'd *love* for there to be less IDE stacks - currently there are *70*
> substacks of the Metacard Menu Bar stack. Granted that some of these are old
> copies that can be deleted or are for dialogs to set really old settings, or
> are copies of the Script Editor, but without some significant changes it's
> not going to get much smaller.
>
> I think the issue is that until RunRev creates namespaces inside LC, the IDE
> stacks should be renamed to get out of the way of the developer, at least
> the more common ones like Preferences and Properties. The only issue with
> only renaming *some* stacks is it becomes inconsistent, which is also a
> pain.
>
> The good thing though is that unless one is working on tools to manipulate
> the IDE itself, they shouldn't encounter the internal stack names of the IDE
> stacks very often, so it may not matter what they get called as long as they
> get out of the way.
>
> Just my 2 cents,
>
>
> Ken Ray
> Sons of Thunder Software, Inc.
> Email: [hidden email]
> Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> metacard mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard


_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed stack name changes for the MC IDE

Robert Brenstein
In reply to this post by Ken Ray
On 30.06.2011 at 8:33 Uhr -0500 Ken Ray apparently wrote:
>
>For the next build of the IDE, I'd like to change the IDE stack names to
>have an "mc" prefix (like "mcPreferences"), but since this affects anything
>that runs as a plugin, etc., I wanted to bring it up for discussion first.
>
>What are your thoughts on this? Good idea? Bad idea? ...?

+1

Robert

_______________________________________________
metacard mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard