Factors That Could Impact Xojo Web1 Application Functionality

Right. I don’t want to sound dismissive about the difficulties of porting from Web 1 to Web 2. I understand that it’s a challenge. If you have to port anyway, why not port elsewhere? No business or tool should ever give their customers an excuse to look to the competition.

But that is the reality of the situation. Web 1 will break some day. It will not be updated. Get a plan in place now. That plan could be moving to Web 2, or that could be moving to another tool. Staying on Web 1 is not a permanent solution.


I doubt that anyone here ever thought that Web1 could last eternally - at least not for professional purposes.
But if I had to walk on a wire, I would want a net underneath.
And if someone told me: “Start walking, then I’ll see if I can put the net”, I wouldn’t be okay with it.

1 Like

The statement “No business or tool should ever give their customers an excuse to look to the competition” may sound like a compelling principle, but it’s not always practical. Similar to other platitudes like “all software has bugs” or “we will support it as long as it is useful,” it lacks actionable advice. If taken to its logical extreme, this idea would suggest that any minor advantage gained by a competitor should prompt a complete overhaul of your own product, which is clearly an unsustainable approach.


That’s a telling statement - what’s so difficult in doing just that? I still maintain an IBM RISC-6000 toolchain for some builds and that platform was created in 1995-ish, a SunOS IPC with SunOS 4.1.5 (NOT Solaris), a Linux 2.6 kernel-based system, and many others. And I’m one dev in my lab environment doing that.

I’ve also been on the REALbasic train since the early days of OS X. Preferably, I’d love to see Xojo move to an LTS model that would create as stable a version of the IDE and Frameworks as possible and keep the new stuff out of it for at least 2 years with the LTS release then rolling every 2 years. Sure, continue to release bleeding edge builds with new features, but continue to maintain the LTS versions so that those of us who are not hobbyists know that we have a stable platform to work with.


Of course there is always a reason to look at a competitor. My point is not to give your customers a compelling reason to look. I mean things like the recent Unity nightmare. If you put up some kind of roadblock - like the transition from Web 1 to Web 2 - that forces developers to consider their options, they might consider to move away. For example, my Xojo app is available for Mac and Windows, though I’d love to have mobile and web versions. Xojo’s offerings for mobile and web are not good enough (in my opinion) so I’d have to rewrite in another tool to make that a reality. If Xojo were to do something to the desktop version that forces me to more-or-less rewrite my desktop app, why would I not take the opportunity to go elsewhere? And this isn’t hypothetical, this happened for some developers, just with web in place of desktop.

Of course, maybe upon reviewing options I’d conclude that sticking with Xojo is still the best move. It’d be less work to rewrite in something I know than something I don’t. But my point in all of this is the company (Xojo, Unity, whomever) should never put a fork in the road and force the customer to consider wether or not they want to stay a customer.