I undertsnd what your intent was behind that post but THAT is a very bad way to maintain the existing customer base.
For example - I HAVE to use 2017r3 because we still have a very large GTK-2 based Linux user base - they don’t care that our development tools no longer allow us to build for GTK-2. I have to use 2016r3 because I have to have a stable released product for Windows. While 18r1 and 18r1.1 where looking like they were heading there, the results from 18r1.1 are still a bit off on Windows for display updates and scrolling, so I stay with 2016r3.
Apparently this worked in 2011R3 and broke sometime after then and was undiscovered for a number of years.
This is not the first thing like this I’ve found.
Xojo has a terrible QA problem - the combinatorics are intense (platforms x IDE version x OS version x target [Web, console, desktop] ) means a metric shit-ton of testing is needed.
In this particular case, one would expect there was a unit test which throws an exception in a thread in a console app and verifies that it’s recorded in stdout.
I think an LTS release is not a bad idea, but presumes a level of unit-test quality which Xojo doesn’t have right now.
That would be true if I were suggesting that Xojo male feature-only releases. Im not. My point is Xojo puts lots of effort into fixes each release, but some features must also be introduced to keep the product moving forward and bringing in new customers.
Im not trying to pretend everything is perfect or that the current model is achieving its goals. The point Ive been trying to drive home is that this is very far from a simple problem. There are a TON of factors at play.
[quote=390409:@Thom McGrath]That would be true if I were suggesting that Xojo male feature-only releases. Im not. My point is Xojo puts lots of effort into fixes each release, but some features must also be introduced to keep the product moving forward and bringing in new customers.
Im not trying to pretend everything is perfect or that the current model is achieving its goals. The point Ive been trying to drive home is that this is very far from a simple problem. There are a TON of factors at play.[/quote]
I both agree and disagree with you Thom. I realize that the showcase of any product are the features it offers and Xojo could not stay feature stagnate for too long without some penalty in regards to sales. However, I truly believe that it would greatly benefit Xojo as a company, not to mention us as the consumer, if Xojo were to step back, take a long, hard look at the product theyre offering and plan a course of action that would allow them to fix the long-standing list of bugs while adding a few features here and there rather than the other way around. I dont think a lot of the paying customer base right now would object to giving up any new features for six months or even a year if Xojo would commit to spending that time doing nothing but fixing the existing product once and for all. Even if Xojo spent that time on one piece at a time, say a few months working solely on the IDE, a few on the framework and a few on the compiler, it would go a long way towards making it a stable development platform and restoring confidence in the product.
The biggest problem Ive seen in the 7 years that I have been using Xojo is that the company keeps bolting on major features such as IOS, 64-Bit and now Android to a product that has never been stable to begin with and each time they do the new stuff inherits the problems of the existing framework. I realize that some of these things are necessary (64-Bit for example) but they really should have invested more into their QA department and devoted more resources to fixing the current product way back when before adding these things. Every developer knows that the longer you allow bugs to live in your code the harder it is to find and patch them later.
IMHO, the best thing about Xojo and the piece I use most is the web application piece, as limited as it is, because it fills a niche gap of being able to quickly create a useable web app without having to deal with CSS, JavaScript and HTML (not that these are bad, just time consuming to learn) and provides a quick method of generating something that will work on any device that has a browser. I occasionally use Xojo for console/service apps and seldom for desktop apps because the platform-native tools do a much better job, mainly due to the bugginess and limitations of the existing Xojo framework.
I really do like Xojo as a whole and will continue to support the company by purchasing a license in hope that someday it becomes the tool we all know it has the potential to be.
[quote=390417:@Emile Schwarz]That simply means Xojo is behing concurent products and try to be on the same level of features.
Thinking 64 bits: they release it nearly just in time. Some months later it would be too late.
Think about that.[/quote]
I dont disagree. My point was that they should fix bugs as they are discovered and not wait until the problem is compounded by adding more features. If Xojo doesnt have the resources to fix bugs and add new features simultaneously then they should either hire more developers or fix the bugs first and then add the features. It would be a worthy investment on their part.
[quote]OK, youre 20 and so you have time to way that someday…
Think Im 70: I do not have 20 years to wait until that someday.[/quote]
Nope, Im 44
Believe me, I wish someday meant in the near future. In the mean time we just have to keep using it until either it becomes something we all love or something better comes along.
[quote=390418:@Emile Schwarz]Another good question:
what is the Xojo competitive feature (Xojo vs other IDE) ?[/quote]
For me, it is the web application piece. They really did a good job on that one. Being able to have a desktop-like application run in a browser is really nice. Its also easier to write a service app for Windows in Xojo than VS, although the advantages are less in that area. As far as desktop apps, for me there are no real advantages, except maybe when I need a small, quick Mac/Linux app. Its easier to throw one together in Xojo than Objective-C or QT/eclipse. Usually, though, the native tools are better for more complex desktop applications.
I’m not a professional programmer, but nevertheless, I think my input is relevant.
In essence, I agree with Markus. It would be great if some of the Xojo engineers were still working on Win2016R3 and were able to iron out the issues with flickering canvas, labels, etc. then I would be happy to renew my license. I’m pragmatic enough to know that that will never happen.
The reality is that I have nothing to upgrade to. I see no benefit. I’ll repeat: I have nothing to upgrade to. I would not upgrade/renew unless there was a compelling reason to do so.
If it was the business model of Xojo to just recruit new users, then that would almost amount to some sort of ponsey scheme or pyramid selling, which I certainly don’t believe is the case.
The problem is the Rapid Release Model environment. I’ve never liked it, and never will.
I’ve worked for a printing company in the pre-press department and oversaw the transition from Aldus PageMaker to the rise of Adobe. This was many years of carefully introducing the next version of software into the system. In those days an upgrade took around 12-18 months, but the upgrade was introduced to one of four machines - then slowly integrated to the other machines when it was deemed safe to do so.
I love using Xojo and are happy to be a supporter of Xojo, but I’ll repeat: I have nothing to upgrade to.
That’s fine, but what I would prefer is a “small fix” of some of the small issues - then I would happily renew my license. I don’t want, nor need BIG new features. Just fixing up the old bugs would ensure I renewed my license, and therefore an ongoing customer.
Never trust in “downgrading” a Xojo source. Keep a backup of the original source in any prior version before testing in a new Xojo release. In case of failures, return the backup and keep working with that older one, and wait the next release for a new try.
Maybe I’m just getting old(er) and find the pace of change is sometimes overwhelming.
It’s almost as though the Hammer that you have always relied upon to knock in a few simple nails, now requires that you plug it into your usb port and subscribe to the “hammer” forum - lest your hammer becomes useless via some sort of actuator device in the neck, making it too loose and therefore rendering it utterly useless for the purpose intended. Unless you pay your monthly subsciption fee.
[EDIT] Damm! - I just let a good idea go for free - oh well, there’s many more where that came from.
Have to say, good that Xojo has not gone down the subscription path.
I do not recall why I have done that (just curiosity ?). BUT IN NO CASE, it was a way to use a 2012 version to build an application.
Now, sharing this experience shows that all news sine 2012 was not used here. In all new features since 2012, I do not found a single one that I can use The only reason I saw for that is I do not work in your category (elsewhere, probably a thin niche), I do not know how this is possible.
And you, what are your experiences ?
PS:
I upgraded in 2013 (to Xojo) because hope and I had to deliver a pro bono application (for Windows).
Having no experience with Xojo or RealBasic, I came in at 2016R2 - messed about with it for a while, liked what I saw, then downloaded 2016R3 - messed about again, liked it, so I purchased a “Lite” license.
The cost of a Lite license is not great in my world. If I went out for a meal, a few beers and a taxi back home, that would cost me more than my Xojo Lite license!
Xojo is a great tool for someone like me - I love using it, and combined with what I’ve learned through the good people on this forum, Xojo goes beyond my needs and understanding - a few niggles here and there, but most can be sorted via “work-arounds”. Although, I’d prefer not to have to deal with work-arounds, but they are there.
So, at this stage, I have nothing to look forward to, and no point or desire to upgrade. So again, I say: I have nothing to upgrade to.
So as Markus suggested, a LTS version of 2016R3 and/or recent releases may well be worthwhile. But of course that would require more engineers at Xojo - Fine, I’d be happy to pay EXTRA for that.
I always prefer to subscribe and be a paying member of any forum that I’m associated with, but in this case, I see no gain (as in Software upgrades).
[EDIT] I’m talking about my experience with Windows Apps, not MacOS.
As it so happens, 2016R3 for Windows is my own LTS. I won’t switch to an earlier version until it does well what 2016R3 already generates. New is not necessarily better. I rather stay with tried and true than new and with rough edges.
Right now - where is the most money to be made… (hoped for) lots of new customers, or from lots of existing ones upgrading for the same price as new customers?
If ( and I confess I have nothing to back this implication up) the majority of existing users are hanging on to the version which works instead of upgrading…
Then to me, a great bug fix / stable build would generate a lot of upgrade fees from people who have their hands in their pockets.
A lot more sales than people who are looking for a development environment to compete with the free offering from elsewhere.
Essentially, I suspect that right now a bug fix version would generate more money than a new feature, (however ‘killer’ ) , if it persuaded the existing user base to upgrade.
