[quote=133158:@Emile Schwarz]Just look at the past years how some large features slipped (for example: how many years to get Cocoa ?)
[/quote]
.NET which arrived even earlier simply never came …
How many developers silently quit the RB/Xojo boat for VS because of that ?
[quote=133162:@Michel Bujardet].NET which arrived even earlier simply never came …
How many developers silently quit the RB/Xojo boat for VS because of that ?[/quote]
Yeah… lets say the newest Linux distros stop support x86 completely in the next year. CentOS 7 its already gone. You can manage to get them working in Ubuntu but future versions? You will be on Ubuntu 14.04 for a long time… If Mac cuts x86 loose once and for all that means Xojo’s desktop is down to one viable platform… the one that flickers.
Xojo 2014 r2.1 is working for me so I do not have any immediate need for a new release.
Like Phillip Zedalis mentioned, 64bit support is becoming a very painfull priority for Xojo inc. IOS is a nice luxury but is not as important as 64bit. In that light, Xojo inc seemed to put the wrong priority.
Our users are requesting it now for more than one year. They wonder why we still deliver 32bit while 64bit is around for more than 5 years. We can only reply to them that our software production tool does not support 64bit.
From the moment Xojo inc deliver 64bit, they get their present applications updated for free to 64bit.
We are very loyal customers of Xojo inc, which is not always valued by Xojo inc itself.
So an important mesage to Xojo inc, first quarter of 2015 is your last deadline for 64bit. Everything beyond that will be too late.
I think that’s a bit harsh for this release.
Considering that it is the last release that works with Carbon, a lot of work was done on this release
Read Bob’s article where he calls this dot release critical for people that still develop for Carbon
http://www.bkeeneybriefs.com/2014/08/xojo-2014-release-2-1/
Am not saying .NET should take precedence, just that it seems Xojo is not able to follow platform evolution (since 2007 for .NET), and does not anticipate either. When all three OSes (Mac OS X, Windows and Linux) are 64 bits, how long indeed will it take for 32 bits to stop being supported ? Already, Yosemite shows the ugly face of deprecation. Ubuntu 64 bits no longer supports 32 bits apps out of the box. Even if Microsoft keeps supporting 32 bits apps, multicore hardware makes a world of difference in performances, not to mention memory addressing.
Norman and Greg have relentlessly said that they are working on it just as on LLVM, and that the iOS project helps getting there. I just hope that once again, Mac will not be the only one getting it, because of the MAS, and Windows gets pushed back some 7 years more. At that point, cross platform pretentions will become a real joke. Xojo disdain for customer loyalty will break the camel’s back, and these customers will have walked off the door…
[quote=133162:@Michel Bujardet].NET which arrived even earlier simply never came …
How many developers silently quit the RB/Xojo boat for VS because of that ?[/quote]
Cocoa first shipped in March of 2001…
So it look to me like it shipped 6 years before .NET.
VERY VERY VERY VERY TRUE !!!
Agreed 100%
[quote=133181:@Robert Schofield]Cocoa first shipped in March of 2001…
So it look to me like it shipped 6 years before .NET.[/quote]
OK. So Cocoa came first. I was referring to the commonplace usage of .NET in XP. Actually, .NET started not long after Cocoa, back in 2002 when Visual Studio was introduced with it.
As usual, my point is not to say which one was first, but to remark that it has been quite awhile .NET was introduced and RB just decided not to do it. Go figure some level of frustration may ensue for users. Users who may have en masse walked away to the more up to date VS.
Somehow, I wonder if Xojo’s insistence on cross-platform is not somewhat misplaced. Support for the Mac platform is outstanding, and that seriously be discussed. But Windows is increasingly appearing as completely outdated. Worse, when questioned about why that platform has not benefited from platform updates, the response is more or less “we chose to give priority to Mac”. As for Linux, besides representing less than 2% of users and I bet an anecdotal number of Xojo users, it seems to be here only as a spinoff from Web Edition.
Xojo would probably be a lot more credible coming clean and admitting that their priority has always been Apple, and that the other platforms are here just as convenient add-ons for when, once in a while, a Mac developer wants to generate a Windows or Linux executable… Nothing shameful in telling the all too apparent truth.
I cannot imagine that XOJO does not know and fully grasp the importance of everything said in this thread about 64bit, IOS and OS evolution. It is unfortunately a fact of doing business that limited resources are allocated based on a balance of several factors, that are not limited to user desires. Ability to deliver, cost of delivering, technical synergy of development threads, strategic map (we must admit that we don’t know what the road ahead is, but Geoff and other XOJO principals surely are following a strategic plan for the company) are among the many factors that are taken into consideration.
We the licenced users are the current income providers for XOJO. But we paid for a product that exists now, not for a promise of something else. Or, if we did pay for a promise, we are poor business people. Let’s not confuse our desires with our rights. Let’s not confuse our position as a client. We cannot demand anything from XOJO. We can, however, walk away when this techological solution no longer represents our best option to meet our own strategic goals. I am not suggesting that we do, just stating the facts. I walked away from an internet provider, a phone company and a car manufacturer because their offer no longer represented my best options. If the same happens with development tools, then the rational action will be to change there also. I am sure that XOJO is also acutely aware of that fact too.
In short, I use what I have at my disposal. I keep my eyes open. I constantly weigh my options and make appropriate decisions when required. No hard feelings, just pragmatic business decisions.
But what if Apple removes 32bit support for the next OS X version? The current, existing features and apps compiled with Xojo will not work anymore. So maybe it would be the right decision to first keep this working and get 64bit working.
I trust Xojo Inc did consider this before and decided to go for iOS first because 64bit wasn’t a big issue and Apple did not give any hints by removing 32bit API’s.
Now Apple did removed 32bit API’s in OS X 10.10 so this could well be a game changer after all.
As times changes rapidly now, business can too. Changing course must be an option to keep in mind.
I expect 64 bit in sometimes in 2015, but given all that is going on, I highly doubt it will be in the 1st quarter for desktop.
[quote=133206:@Christoph De Vocht]But what if Apple removes 32bit support for the next OS X version? The current, existing features and apps compiled with Xojo will not work anymore. So maybe it would be the right decision to first keep this working and get 64bit working.
I trust Xojo Inc did consider this before and decided to go for iOS first because 64bit wasn’t a big issue and Apple did not give any hints by removing 32bit API’s.
Now Apple did removed 32bit API’s in OS X 10.10 so this could well be a game changer after all.
As times changes rapidly now, business can too. Changing course must be an option to keep in mind.[/quote]
From the tests conducted by a lot of us here, Yosemite has not deprecated all 32 bits apps. We should be mostly OK for now, if not using some specific declares that may no longer work, as Sam and others may have reported. But this is the writing on the wall. The next “snow Yosemite” pardon the analogy may very well be the end of sunny days for 32 bits apps.
I believe Xojo does not have the luxury to pass iOS even if it wanted to, since neglecting a market already some five times that of Mac would make them irrelevant in the years to come. Besides, at long last, iOS is almost here.
With some degree of luck, Xojo will be able to pull it off, by releasing iOS first, then working diligently on 64 bits for Mac, be in time for what’s going to come after Yosemite. And if they have some spare time (doubtful), other platforms…
This is simply not true. Any place you have used Integer in your code, you will need to look at it and decide if the behavior will change because it’s a larger number on a 64 bit system.
Also, it’s worth pointing out (again) that things are being done in a particular order largely based on what we need to get all of these features out the door.
This is not a “hm, what should we work on” thing. It’s a “what do we need to do next to keep everything moving forward” Thing.
Xojo 2013 is working for me and thats where I stay for a while because I don’t want to ditch the users of OSX 10.6
Really?
Not one of my customers has even breathed a word except to ask ‘does your app work on this 64bit version of Windows 7’
The answer is yes.
OK, markets vary… maybe your users have Linux boxes and don’t want to install the 32bit libs.
As a consumer, I wouldn’t know a 64 bit app from a 32 bit one by eye, and as long as the performance was right, I’m not concerned.
I get this question several times a month (OS X users).
On Macupdate.com you can see users give low ratings because the app is 32bit. It is a fact: Many users think 64bit is better then 32bit.
I wonder why.
NEVER sell what you don’t have
If you’re promising things that REQUIRE unreleased versions of your development software or future features you’re in trouble before you’ve ever done anything.
[quote=133169:@Michel Bujardet]
Norman and Greg have relentlessly said that they are working on it just as on LLVM, and that the iOS project helps getting there. I just hope that once again, Mac will not be the only one getting it, because of the MAS, and Windows gets pushed back some 7 years more. [/quote]
LLVM IS the new compiler - capable of creating 32 & 64 bit apps and it will work everywhere
We’ll require new linkers as well as the existing linker is NOT 64 bit capable - these will work everywhere so you can still build a Windows app from OS X or Linux, etc.
And we need 64 bit frameworks (or frameworks that compile correctly as either 32 or 64 bit) - suffice to say there has to be 32 and 64 bit version somehow. These are for each platform.
And an updated debugger that understands 32 and 64 bit apps.
iOS happens to need some of these as well so we can work on them concurrently
[quote=133169:@Michel Bujardet]
At that point, cross platform pretentions will become a real joke. Xojo disdain for customer loyalty will break the camel’s back, and these customers will have walked off the door…[/quote]
Not sure how / why you would think there is “disdain”
We try to keep you informed of whats going on as best we can without it turning into “Ah but you promised…”