WinBuilder would be in a better position to defend itself with a project that supported multiple sources exactly because you and many other people don't understand that wb itself is only an engine following the instructions by a third-party that created a project.
Nuno, the problem is that the fundamental syntax rules which the WB engine accepts keeps changing. That's the whole point -- maintaining a project is very difficult for this reason and if you want to add "build from any selected source files" into the mix then this will be even more difficult to maintain. I wholeheartedly agree with Uli's assessment.
I already did something about this:
- Proposed a test project to ensure correct functioning of available commands across versions.
Which was shown to be unworkable due to syntax changing on a whim.
- Suggested a release schedule and phases that would be simple to follow and prevent major changes between versions;
Which hasn't been followed by you or Peter.
- Tried that focus would be given on winbuilder projects instead of winbuilder.exe features;
That's always been happening for project developers and script developers. Hence our complaints arising about script syntax always changing necessitating project and script upgrades all the time.
- Moved the old bugtracker to a more public location;
Only you were really in favour of this.
- Suggested that api.script was optimized along with projects since the building is not efficient;
Which was a nice distraction from the real issue where WB itself has grown very sluggish as evidenced by build comparisons between 077rc2 and 080 where 077rc2 would build up to twice as fast. api.script has been optimised in recent months, but we still await an optimised winbuilder.exe that doesn't carry alongside the baggage of script syntax changes like what 081rc1 has.
- Suggested that the documentation moved to a place where members can edit it.
That's quite a good idea and it'd be great if the syntax written there wasn't altered at every WB release unless script developers were involved in such a decision.
Now don't complain and request a better development model. Perhaps now you understand better that those were attempts to bring some organization. Thank you for helping.
Thanks for your thanks regarding the help I've tried to give. Lancelot and I have spent quite a few weeks over recent months optimising particular api commands. I'm glad you appreciate the effect that has gone into that undertaking. It's been no small feat in Pedro's absense.
If I could, I'd surely like sit down one more time and prove that with enough magic and effort we can achieve a simple, small and efficient solution.
Magic would be indeed what's needed!
you and Lancelot many times requested in several hundreds topics per thread that nobody else would request or understand.
In reality we've made very few actual feature requests; mostly it's been bug reports. Lancelot is after all a bug-catcher. We've dropped out of making such reports due to the conflict this creates (although we do know of many bugs with both 081rc1 and versions released after that date, we just haven't been posting them to the bugtracker because of the conflict this causes). We're focussing our efforts on building projects with supplied only 077rc2 and 080 and not with any later versions unless it is agreed that script syntax can only be changed in consultation with project and script developers.
Don't complain to me about over-complexity or ever changing functionality, I'm in a favor of over-simplicity and never voted to see LiveXP to become so overly complex as it is today.
You miss the point. I'm not complaining about over-complexity and I'm not complaining about changing functionality. Both are fine and have their place. Let me repeat again what I don't like: fundamental syntax being repeatedly altered, script developers not being included in the decision making regarding this, and not being given adequate reasons for why the changes where necessary in the first place