outro
[1/11] from: maarten:koopmans:surfnet:nl at: 13-Dec-2002 9:49
All,
I can't find in the SDK what I was looking for (both in terms of license
and in new functionality), so.... I am outta here.
Rugby is unsupported officially from now on (I haven't done a thing in 7
months with it).
Thanks for all the good and insightful discussions.
--maarten
[2/11] from: kemp:extelligence at: 13-Dec-2002 12:46
Sorry to hear that. I sympathize, though.
We're building some software we hope to sell millions of copies of, and I'm
NOT letting anyone see the source text, so in REBOL it would have to be
encapped. Hmmm, 10% of my sales to use REBOL? No way, when I can use other
compilers and tools for free to $500, and they may be less advanced and
development-time-efficient, but are more stable, better documented, and run
like heck? I don't pay 10% on royalties for licensing critical 3rd party
technologies, I sure as heck won't do it for a development tool. I'd
consider for us 0.5-1.0% at most, or it's well worth hiring other
developers. For many companys' apps, 10% is their entire margin.
So, our saleable products are built in other languages (Java & Objective-C),
and some of our demos and investigations are done in REBOL. Unfortunately,
RT won't make much through us ... hate to say, 'cuz I love the product and
where it could go.
With the current licensing scheme, RT is relegating itself to providing
great technology for freeware and small, low-priced/low-distribution
applications. The 'rebolution' won't be causing any governments to topple.
Kemp
[3/11] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 13-Dec-2002 11:42
Hi Kemp,
KW> We're building some software we hope to sell millions of copies of, and I'm
KW> NOT letting anyone see the source text, so in REBOL it would have to be
KW> encapped. Hmmm, 10% of my sales to use REBOL? ... I'd
KW> consider for us 0.5-1.0% at most, or it's well worth hiring other
KW> developers. For many companys' apps, 10% is their entire margin.
Have you talked to RT at all? Being a small company, they can make
custom arrangements with people, and I believe they do. Maybe they
could give you some kind of sliding scale based on volume or
something. Dunno, but I'd say it's worth a call.
-- Gregg
[4/11] from: maarten:koopmans:surfnet:nl at: 13-Dec-2002 19:37
Yep. They should be trying to sell millions of SDKs instead of
marginalizing it using a royalty scheme. Besides that, there is hardly any
real advancement for me as I like the complete package much more then Bas
and Face.
The RDK is competing with the Perl dev kit or ASPN perl from activetate,
which are $295-499 and provide royaltee free distribution (and Perltray,
Perl.NET ...) *if* I wanted to do something commercial (which I don't) I'd
choose that kind of product, I guess.
Too bad, though.
--Maarten
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Kemp Watson wrote:
[5/11] from: kemp::extelligence::net at: 13-Dec-2002 14:44
Yep yep =)
There's another point - RT is greatly complicating things by offering ever
more 'combinations' of features - this is bound to cause BIG problems in the
future. Much better for both them and us to offer one comprehensive package
that can run ANY Rebol code. Is it a language? A set of libraries? A GUI
toolset? An O/S abstraction layer? A shell? I dunno. The idea of picking
your own functionality may seem appealing on a very cursory basis, but it
just doesn't scale up to anything serious.
I don't want to be constantly telling my clients "no, no, you've got the
wrong Rebol. I know it's current, and it works for your other rebol app, but
it won't work for ours'. Java versioning is bad enough... Ah, the beauty of
a true compiler.
K.
[6/11] from: ammon:addept:ws at: 13-Dec-2002 13:26
Hi,
RT definitely makes custom arrangements with ppl. ;-0
Enjoy!!
Ammon Johnson --- CIO
Addept ------------------ (www.addept.ws)
435-616-2322 -------- (ammon at addept.ws)
[7/11] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 13-Dec-2002 15:56
Hi Kemp,
On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 02:44 PM, Kemp Watson wrote:
> Yep yep =)
> There's another point - RT is greatly complicating things by offering
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
> toolset? An O/S abstraction layer? A shell? I dunno. The idea of
> picking
This part I agree with in part, having too many options can be
a drawback, though I wouldn't put it in the BIG category.
> your own functionality may seem appealing on a very cursory basis, but
> it
> just doesn't scale up to anything serious.
This part I don't agree with. These new versions are available to
give us the developer control over what we build into the finished
application, as well as show us what RT has done to implement
certain features. This is a very good thing for serious application
development. Look at them as optimization features for building
the product.
> I don't want to be constantly telling my clients "no, no, you've got
> the
> wrong Rebol. I know it's current, and it works for your other rebol
> app, but
Again, partially an issue but one that isn't really brought on by the
different flavors in the SDK. If you get the wrong version from there
in your applications it is your fault. :-)
> it won't work for ours'. Java versioning is bad enough... Ah, the
> beauty of
> a true compiler.
Yeah, while not nearly as bad as Java REBOL does need to get
settled on the versioning front some itself. Beta versions need to
be short term instances, not what we've been working with lately.
My .02, Rod.
Rod Gaither
[rgaither--triad--rr--com]
Oak Ridge, NC USA
[8/11] from: anton:lexicon at: 15-Dec-2002 17:14
It would be a shame to see you go Maarten.
You've been very helpful here.
What was the functionality that
you were looking for?
Anton.
[9/11] from: bry:itnisk at: 16-Dec-2002 12:00
KW> We're building some software we hope to sell millions of copies of,
and I'm
KW> NOT letting anyone see the source text, so in REBOL it would have to
be
KW> encapped. Hmmm, 10% of my sales to use REBOL? ... I'd
KW> consider for us 0.5-1.0% at most, or it's well worth hiring other
KW> developers. For many companys' apps, 10% is their entire margin.
This is my only real problem with Rebol, Although in my case it becomes
worse as not all the source would be in Rebol, which adds accounting
problems. Other problems, such as functionality etc. are not so bad but
the arcane licensing is a killer and which keeps it as nothing more than
a little hobbyist thing I'm sort of interested in but don't really have
much time to devote to.
[10/11] from: maarten:koopmans:surfnet:nl at: 16-Dec-2002 16:58
intro ;-)
Hi,
Thank you for the responses and nice words, both on the list and on
AltMe. I have more or less decided to give it a try, although I don't
like the royalty program and have little time.
Formulated differently: I trust Carl beyond being a REBOL master.
Watch what's coming....
--maarten
[11/11] from: ammon::addept::ws at: 16-Dec-2002 12:10
Hi,
Good to have you around Maarten, you are an invaluable asset to the
community. ;-)
Enjoy!!
Ammon Johnson --- CIO
Addept ------------------ (www.addept.ws)
435-616-2322 -------- (ammon at addept.ws)
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted