For context, this is the only time the Web framework has had such a drastic change. Web framework 1.0 came out in 2010, when the web was a very different place. Web framework 2.0 came out last year and is unavoidably different under the hood from the original. It’s maturing with each release.
3 Likes
Of course, that is understandable, logic and expected. The problem is the part that is NOT under the hood, Xojo keeps making changes in the languaje, the names, the clasess, the behaviors, that is the scary part. Lot of time wasted on relearnig a new framework a new way of thinking to adapt to the lack of features (events, control sets, etc)
3 Likes
The top most issue with Web 2 is, that it is not Web 1. A lot of developers are just very disappointed, that their years-old-code is not maintained anymore by Xojo and that they have to rewrite a hole bunch of things. I, for my self, am disappointed foremost about the communication and some ignorance spread by the Inc. But that is my problem.
Web 2 will become a good development tool. It is already, to be fair.
Sure, the bugs in Web 2 are annoying af, but the bugs in Web 1 also never really kept one away from using it. You can always work around this.
If the listbox is not working, buy a third-party-control or better: write your own.
If container controls are to slow, then find another way.
And if that all is not suitable for you, then use another frontend framework. There are plenty of very, very well written and fun to use frameworks. Your backend-logic can still be written in Xojo though.
And if that is not suitable for you, then it is simply what it is. Then is Xojo not the right tool for you and you have to face it. Period.
The bug where weblistbox’s height of row can’t be changed has a workaround, yes. Unfortunately, this workaround won’t update the scrollbar and, if you set the rows smaller, you can still scroll up to where the last row would be, and the listbox fills the space with purple-stripped weird lines.
No known workaround beyond this.
Xojo is already not cheap, so just for changing the height of rows of a weblistbox, I should pay a third party control (assuming one exists)?
This certainly would require knowledge of Javascript or similar languages. If I mastered them in the first place, I believe I’d have used them from start. I mean, one strength of Xojo is exactly to hide Javascript (and under-the-hood frameworks) from us whenever possible.
2 Likes
You don’t have to master Javascript to make some little changes. The language is easy and as long you were be able to learn Xojo, you’ll also learn simple DOM-manipulations in Javascript.
From my perspective, I also highly recommend to get used to Javascript, if you write web apps. Even if you use Xojo, which does the main part for you, you always should know what is going on and how to tweak around.
To be clear: I don’t say that we should stop to point Xojo to their disadvantages and their currently not to-be-overseen problems. But a lot of us should also calm down again, and come to a more pragmatic view.
3 Likes
Be careful what you wish for … 
1 Like
If you need to learn language A, to fix bugs, and complete in your apps, made using language B that transpiles to A, at some point probably you will abandon B and start to write directly in A. That’s why having a stable and complete B is important to Xojo.
4 Likes
I am completely with you! Bugs must be fixed. I don’t wanted to give Xojo an excuse for that.
I just tried to say, that there are probably already solutions/workarounds out there for that.
Btw. when ever you use a language which transpiles or translates thing into another language, it is a good thing when you know the basics of the target language. The experience tells us that. The experience with Xojo obviously, but also with React/React-Native, Dart/Flutter for example.
1 Like
I also don’t support “workarounds” instead of fixes, and normalize substitution of missing, broken or incomplete components with 3rd party options. 3rd party options must be used just to gain specific and advanced features, not basic ones.
3 Likes
Other developement tools are more expensive and I have had no problem paying for them, these are tools for work so expect to pay for your tools. We have been spoiled by the Open Source movement but personally I have no problem paying for the tools I use (as long as they actually do what they claim they do).
2 Likes
There is no escaping JS and CSS when working with the web. We don’t need to be experts but we do need basic knowledge.
3 Likes
Actually, for SPAs, there is.
SPA’s without touching JS? I’m not claiming it’s not possible but I’ve yet to grasp how that could be done
It amazes me that people that want to create webapps, is not willing to touch some of the underlaying tech, why would you not do that.
Seems to me that is beleiving in utopia
5 Likes
Using a language and framework so complete in features that transpiles/translates your definitions and code to HTML5 CSS and JS in realtime solves that. This thing exists and is supported by large corporations.
1 Like
THE same reason why people want to use Xojo desktop instead of having to know the API’s for each platform Xojo supports maybe?
-Karen
3 Likes
but is that really how it is? You never need anything platform specific?
You can mostly get away with that on desktop thanks to Christian. Not knowing CSS and Javascript is just a bad idea for Web.
4 Likes
Very seldom and in that case I either find a declare someone has written and shared, or use a plugin (though I do that latter very sparingly)
For most basic business type stuff not so in my experience… but I mostly don’t do things with very demanding UIs. That said I do use some plugins for zipping, PDFs and Charting/Graphing mainly.
Anyway this getting off topic as this thread is about web.
-Karen
I have spent a lot of money on free open source tools. I have also made a lot of money from them, so I’m not complaining. “Free” is a myth.
4 Likes