Xojo misrepresented on Wikipedia

HI …

While browsing some software topics on Wikipedia I noticed that Xojo seemed to be misrepresented. At the very least I would classify Xojo as being “object oriented”, for example.

Somebody with more technical rigour than I might like to amend these oversights (and thereby, encourage more usage :slight_smile:

Cheers … Ian

It’s not really misrepresented there, it’s just that Xojo is not on that specific page yet.

Thanks for pointing this out Ian! Contributing more Xojo content to Wikipedia is a great way to help us get more visibility! When you guys Tweet about Xojo/Facebook/tell your friends, it really makes a big difference! Growing the community is good for all of us. On the topic, if you all might take a moment to post a review of Xojo here we’d really appreciate it!

CNET? Really? Nobody I know uses it anymore.

CNET : 220 downloads

Macupdate: 790 downloads

Two listings on MacUpdate, one with rather negative feedback: http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/8438/xojo

I noticed that now Xojo has been added to the page and is checked as OO.

Just added a review to CNET :slight_smile:

@Markus Winter CNET shows up when searching for Xojo so having product reviews is helpful. Reviews on MacUpdate are absolutely helpful too!

@Michael Thanks for posting a review!

Hi Dana,

I imagine that Xojo has SO analysts working in the background somewhere yes? What about cultural/psychological analysts? There is some research I’d love to share with you, on why this type of data is vital for Xojo to take into consideration, if it wants to rapidly expand and/or continue to have a steady/exponential growth. I took a seat listening in on another development company (company has expanded to 10 times the size of Xojo with the same number of employees, in less than a 5th of the almost 20 year Xojo run) conference, and the fact they hire cultural/psychological analysts is their reason for the intense growth rate. Apple does it, microsoft does it, google does it, and it’s a little kept secret to their huge successes. If nothing more the datas are good reads and the more you search the web, the more the impact is evident. I would love to see a “Xojo Revolution,” and for the past 2 years have been trying to ‘rope’ in as many new people as possible to join the community. More developers = more community resources. If what they said in the conference is true, it may be a future key to Xojo’s success, over search engine results. I’d be glad to mail you some reads about it.

-Matt

I just clicked on the link Dana provided for Xojo on Cnet (Download.com) and this is specifically for Xojo on the Mac. I searched for Xojo as a Windows download and it is outdated (not the current version like the Mac download page lists). The Windows version is for 2013r2 and the publisher’s description is lacking. What I mean is, the description is ONLY focused on Xojo for web development and nothing for application development. I would have expected the Mac and Windows version descriptions be the same since this is a cross platform development tool with the added functionality for web development.

Here’s the links to both for your own comparison:

Mac Download
Windows Download

Not a criticism, just an observation.

The one you linked as Windows is actually in the “web development software” category. I’m not sure why the Windows only one isn’t showing when you search, but I have already submitted an update. Thanks!

You’re welcome.

Joseph: Was going to post the same thing in a bit, saved me the trouble though. :slight_smile:

Some of the feedback submitted is outdated and a bit “whiny” in tone as well. Is Xojo flawless? No, a few of the complaints are valid, but some of the complaints are goofy and more related (as Markus pointed) in some cases to the commenter’s lack of knowledge or programming skill than any deficit with Xojo.

I don’t have a MacUpdate account, but that first review should be appealed to the MU managers as it is waaaaaaaaay off the mark.
Markus responded well to the second, but even it should be reported to the MU folks as the user misunderstanding rather than an issue with anything Xojo.

Especially of you rate your own Xojo with 5 stars. :wink: :wink: :wink:

[quote=86884:@Tim Jones]I don’t have a MacUpdate account, but that first review should be appealed to the MU managers as it is waaaaaaaaay off the mark.
Markus responded well to the second, but even it should be reported to the MU folks as the user misunderstanding rather than an issue with anything Xojo.[/quote]

Just write a mail to Misha. He would most probably remove that review when you ask.

[quote=86884:@Tim Jones]I don’t have a MacUpdate account, but that first review should be appealed to the MU managers as it is waaaaaaaaay off the mark.
Markus responded well to the second, but even it should be reported to the MU folks as the user misunderstanding rather than an issue with anything Xojo.[/quote]

Yep, or the person further down complaining about a product when it was clearly indicated it was in a Beta stage still. ‘Markus Winter’ defused it pretty well in the response, but that complaint has little validity at that point in time.

These feedbacks shows once again how, when anybody can post whatever under the shroud of anonymity, it tends to cater to the lower end of the intellectual spectrum. Dumbo downloads Xojo. Dumbo tries to program without knowing the first thing. Dumbo blames Xojo. Unfortunately, Web 2.00 is all for such morons :confused:

Well, “lower end of the intellectual spectrum” and calling others “Dumbo” is not exactly better or taking the moral high-ground, is it?

One should be careful with what one says, as it tells little about others but much about yourself.

I wrote my own review.

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/8438/xojo

“Cons
The free version is fully functional but it cannot build stand alone programs, nor can it generate cross platform executables.”

Why is that a “con”? Isn’t it normal that commercial software costs money? And that a free version of a commercial product has less features?

It seems the “free” concept is even tripping up supporters. Maybe Xojo should reconsider their naming and call it Xojo lite?

I have no pretentions for moral high ground, and will not apologize for pointing out the pitiful demise of exchange quality over anonymous internet because of rampant ignorance. Infantile blabber is of no interest to me. Now there are many synonyms to “Dumbo” that design ignorant, inconsequent and all together noise making, rumor monging and disinformation spreading individuals. I will try to be more creative next time.

[quote=86946:@Markus Winter]“Cons
The free version is fully functional but it cannot build stand alone programs, nor can it generate cross platform executables.”
Why is that a “con”? Isn’t it normal that commercial software costs money? And that a free version of a commercial product has less features?
[/quote]

Objectivity consist into describing the product limitations without making it worse than what it is, or refraining from describing a product in too laudative terms. You know full well that I am a vaccinated Xojo enthusiast for lots of good reasons. I tried to make that review netral enough to be informative. And yes, for that particular version, the con is that it cannot build. Is it not a fact ? I did say it was fully functional, but pointing out limits in the version offered for download does not mean in any way that the requirement to buy to build is wrong. Please do not put words where they have not been written.

Well, I’m glad you got that off your chest :wink:

But really, if you complain about low standards, then shouldn’t you aspire to higher ones? Going down the same route isn’t very … well, my english vocabulary leaves me here … let’s just say you come across as someone who looks down on others and thinks he is a better class of person (which I’m sure you aren’t or at least had no intention to be) which takes a lot of authority out of your “argument”.

Well, you don’t seem to spot the logical fallacy in your argumentation. Is it “fully functional” or “limited”? You use both in your argumentation. The problem is simply that for the IDE “fully functional” does not include building apps, therefore it cant be a “con” that the “fully functional” IDE doesn’t build apps. However you “expect” a functionality with the term “fully functional” which is ONLY valid if this free version is the same as a fully licensed version.

But you are not the only one where the expectation of what “fully functional” means and what it really is digress. That’s why I think Xojo needs to rethink their naming.