[quote=486835:@Seth Ober]Another example that I don’t think anyone is actively complaining about is that the iOS platform is unable to run the IDE to build for ANY platform at all. Is anyone upset about that (as cool as it might be)? With Apple rumored to be releasing an iOS-compatible IDE it might become more relevant in the future, but not for now (at least, not to me–YMMV).
[/quote]
As far as I know this it technically possible as other devs tools do this and compile and run directly on device
Xojo could as well I suppose
Right now Xojo uses the simulator for debug runs and that only exists on macOS so the usefulness of being able to edit an iOS project on Windows or Linux is really limited value since all you could do is edit the project - you cant even test
[quote=486824:@Geoff Perlman]This is a limitation of LLVM’s mach-O linker upon which we depend. It does not currently support linking 64-bit macOS applications from Windows or Linux. That said, it is open source and we are working on modifying it to resolve this issue. In the mean time, you can build for macOS from a Mac. Given that Apple does not allow you to run macOS from a VM, if you’re going to develop applications for macOS, you should have a Mac for testing anyway. Releasing an application on a platform upon which you have never tested is not wise to say the least. Any type of license for Xojo you have that allows you to compile for more than one platform also allows you to install your license on more than one computer which means you don’t have to buy another license from us in order to be able to build Mac apps when your primary development platform is Windows or Linux.
This is certainly an inconvenience for some and for that we are sorry. I can only say that we ARE working to resolve the issue ourselves rather than wait for the LLVM project to resolve it.[/quote]
@Geoff Perlman Firstly, I really don’t think it was appropriate for you to mark my answer as “solved” (which I have now unmarked) yourself. I certainly don’t find your solution to be a comprehensive answer.
I completely agree with what @Dave S says in that your answer feels much more like an excuse than an explanation. Your website clearly states that you can build for any platform from any platform. That is absolutely NOT true and is false marketing. Whether or not I want to debug my app on the platform I am deploying too is my decision, not Xojo’s.
Hmm. It’s been logged as an issue in Feedback since December 2018 (16 months). Not sure I’d call a 16 month toothache a temporary problem.
That is most likely because the Feedback app is not the most intuitive platform to engage with to get an increased ranking.
That’s absolutely fine to have that opinion Seth but that’s not what Xojo’s advertising is claiming.
And yet it’s just coming up on the forum now and we get few if any complaints through support or customer service about it.
But intuitive enough for people to upvote Android support and a few hundred other cases…[quote=486840:@Garry Pettet] I certainly don’t find your solution to be a comprehensive answer.[/quote]
What exactly would it have had to include to meet that definition?
seriously?
good bye
[quote=486847:@Geoff Perlman]And yet it’s just coming up on the forum now and we get few if any complaints through support or customer service about it.
[/quote]
This issue does not matter to me now as i have a Mac on my desk both at home and at work… although that has not always been the case.
But I think truth/accuracy in advertising is n important factor in how much one decides to trust a company. It was know well in advance that Catalina would not support 32 bit apps so its not like it was something apple sprung on you with little notice.
While it is your forum and you can do what you want, I find it VERY disturbing that Xojo Inc decided to mark a user’s question as answered on their own. That bothers me more than the inaccurate advertising.
-Karen
Update: Originally it appeared that the LLVM team was not going to put effort into updating their linker so that it can build mach-O apps from non-Mac platforms. We then decided to attempt this on our own. We were going down that path when the LLVM them recently reactivated the project as is making steady progress. Rather than us spending many weeks duplicating their effort, we are now monitoring their progress and once it’s ready (hopefully later this year) we will integrate it into Xojo. Our using LLD (the LLVM linker) is a huge benefit because it allows us to have a single linker for all targets.
Anyone can mark a response as having answered the question, not just the user, as Garry has quite clearly demonstrated. The point of that system is to make it possible for people to see that the question has been answered so they don’t themselves spend time trying to find the answer or answering it themselves. Marking a question as answered is not restricted to the user who originally posted the question.
As far as I can see, that is not true for non moderators… I can only mark my own questions as answered and that was Garry’s question.
-Karen
That is false, you must have forum moderation privileges.
yes, yes it is
[quote=486858:@Karen Atkocius]As far as I can see, that is not true for non moderators… I can only mark my own questions as answered and that was Garry’s question.
-Karen[/quote]
Ah Garry was able to unmark it as he was the original poster. I was wrong about that.
[quote=486847:@Geoff Perlman]@Garry Pettet That is most likely because the Feedback app is not the most intuitive platform to engage with to get an increased ranking.
But intuitive enough for people to upvote Android support and a few hundred other cases…[/quote]
Yet overlooked enough by the Xojo team to have set it only to “Reviewed” with no feedback in the issue about the fact that this is a LLVM dependency issue and that it is being actively worked on.
You’re missing the point Geoff. Your advertising is completely wrong in this regard. Your tool cannot build for any platform from any platform. It doesn’t matter that nobody has noticed or complained. Just like it doesn’t matter that it used to but now doesn’t. The fact is, currently, the IDE does not do what you state it does.
[quote=486847:@Geoff Perlman]@Garry Pettet I certainly don’t find your solution to be a comprehensive answer.
What exactly would it have had to include to meet that definition?[/quote]
In addition to the explanation you have given about the LLVM project (which I accept and understand) you acknowledge the misleading advertising and change your description of the project. Additionally, I follow the Xojo world very closely but this issue did escape me because it does not directly affect me. That doesn’t mean one can infer that I am complaining for the sake of complaining - I am merely pointing out that there is misleading information about your product on your own site.
@Geoff Perlman: Do you realise that if you are running the Xojo IDE on Windows that you cannot even debug a Mac app running Catalina without physically buying a Mac and running the IDE on that Mac? I don’t think it’s unreasonable given the statements made about Xojo’s capabilities that you shouldn’t need to shell out $1000 - $1500 to test an app in development on another platform.
Did somebody try this possible legal solution for those needing and not owning a Mac platform? https://www.macincloud.com/
Not a fix for the problem, but a possible workaround for those in need, just in case.
It is not a good development practice to be unable to test on a platform you support. Therefore, if you are doing your primary development on Windows but you provide a macOS versions of your software, you should indeed own a Mac or at least have constant access to one in order to adequately test your software.
FWIW, you have not been able to build for iOS from Windows either since the very first release. This is an Apple limitation, not a Xojo one and yet few have ever complained about that and no one has ever said that our marketing message is in conflict with this. You can’t run the IDE on Raspberry Pi either for that matter.
Marketing messages are a problem when a lot of customers expectations are not being met. I say a lot because there’s no marketing message that will ever satisfy everyone. While we will eventually have a solution to his problem, we get very few complaints about it. That’s why the Feedback case has no ranking. That’s why few have written to support or customer service about it.
I believe Xojo users want us to spend our time on the things that matter most. Marketing language is not like code. If there’s something that is not universally and undeniably perfectly understood by everyone who reads it, it doesn’t crash their brain. Marketing is far more nuanced than that. If this was so big of a problem that we were regularly getting confused users and customers contacting us, we would have changed the language to say “most” or something to that affect but that makes it more confusing for everyone else. What do you mean by most? Imagine if every API we provide had to come with a caveat that included any behavior that is not supported due to a bug. That would be untenable.
I appreciate that as software developers, we are used to dealing with logic that should be as accurate as possible and account for every situation but communication with people simply does not work that way. If it did, communicate is all we would ever do. We would get no actual work done.
Nevertheless, I have heard your complaint. It is noted. And I appreciate your enthusiasm for Xojo and your desire for everyone about it to be as perfect as it can be. We share that desire.
Hi @Geoff Perlman
I think its a reasonable solution would be to update marketing material to reflect what the current version of Xojo is capable of doing. Then once compiling from windows or linux for mac is available, the language could be added back to the marketing material.
I think it would help the existing customer base and future customer from confusion.
In addition, what is best practice for how one should develop is a different argument than what marketing material says. If marketing material says you can, and you find out after purchase you cant… I hope you can see user frustration.
thank you again for your help in this
and a problem when they directly mis-state the available functions/features… And I’ll bet that 99% of new users who discover this, don’t complain… they just go on to the next available development tool
not the point of this topic
I too believe this to be true… but have stopped wondering if/when it would begin to happen
[quote=486878:@Rich H]Hi @Geoff Perlman
I think its a reasonable solution would be to update marketing material to reflect what the current version of Xojo is capable of doing. Then once compiling from windows or linux for mac is available, the language could be added back to the marketing material.
I think it would help the existing customer base and future customer from confusion.
In addition, what is best practice for how one should develop is a different argument than what marketing material says. If marketing material says you can, and you find out after purchase you cant… I hope you can see user frustration.
thank you again for your help in this[/quote]
Hi Rich,
Well that’s the thing. We get very few questions about this. In fact, in the 18 months or so since this was an issue, we have had a total of about 10 emails to customer service about it. Changing the marketing message might actually create more confusion than it clears up. Remember that this is marketing. It’s not expecting to have the level of accuracy that a legal contract does. If it did, marketing from every company would read like a contract. That would be awful. I’m not saying that marketing should intentionally mislead but at the same time, it can’t be long and complex either because you won’t be able to get the message across.
Geoff… consider this as " Ad Hominem" if you like… but I will admit, at one point I had great respect for you, for your company, the vision of the industry and the product you produced. It is a sorry thing that over the past year you have managed to totally destroy any and all that respect… But then it is your company, and nobody can tell you how to run it
And that’s OK with me. Xojo’s remote debugger makes developing for the Raspberry Pi an amazingly easy task. I’m absolutely sold on the Xojo Remote Debugger for Raspberry Pi development.
Understood and thank you Geoff for your feedback.
One of the many things I have enjoyed about Xojo is the ability to download the current version of the release and not a a time restrictions on how long it will run for. Thank you again for continue to support this philosophy and I am sure it helps gain new users who are considering Xojo as their next hop in programming needs.
With this said, the version you can download today without purchase doesn’t allow to compile an application. I agree with this functionality as one can start to code a project see how it runs in debug mode and make the determination if its worth to pull the trigger on making a purchase (Again, I support this logic). Now, what makes this topic a gray area is that we are talking about compiling an application that can only be done once you have a license.
So, to follow the workflow:
- User does research on new programming platform to try out.
- During their search, they discover Xojo and begin to read the marketing marketing material.
- User creates an account with Xojo and downloads Xojo to be used as a free trail without limits.
- User sees they cannot build application so no testing can be done, but the user remembers the marketing material.
- User decides that they will make purchase of lets say… Xojo Pro
- User continues to code their application until its time to deploy.
- User sees that on their windows machine that they cannot deploy to mac.
- User goes back to marking material and gets confused because marketing material says you can do something but the option to do it in the application is not present.
I understand that when to comes to marketing material, the goal is to not intentionally mislead (I agree with your statement); however, if there is a known issue with ability to do something that marketing material is say at the moment on the current version but not able to do in the current release (Regardless if it used to), marketing material should be reflective in what the product can do.
Again, I think what is being ask… and it is reasonable. to have marketing material be reflective of what the product can do… especially if we are talking about features that are not enable until after purchase.
thank you Geoff for this request consideration to update the marketing material.