Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Back Compatibility


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 April 2009 - 01:16 PM

Just a crazy idea:

I'm thinking about a command like
System,COMPATIBILITY,{74|76}
.

Question: Necesssary?
If yes:
  • Theoretically
  • Practically
    If Practically:
  • Which statements are for discussion?
  • SAmple: 'Blah Blah' in 074 becomes 'Bla Bla', in 076 becomes 'blo blo'
  • Which statements in my script do not work anymore, and
  • How many weeks I have to spend to correct
  • I cannot correct it
[/list]Please consider, that a back comptatibility to 074 may also introduce the old processing speed which has been about double time.

Peter

#2 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7101 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 21 April 2009 - 01:47 PM

I think that it can be a very nice thing. :)

But also a problem. :)

From my "external" point of view, I presume that there are two "main" kind of incompatibilities:
  • WRONG (that has always been wrong) syntax used by some developers that "by chance" worked with a given release but since they are not "syntax clean" do not work on other versions
  • CHANGES introduced in syntax by later enhancements/betterings

This is somehow connected with the "strict" vs. "tolerant" approach that was discussed some time ago and with syntax highlighting.

For the "willing" .script developer updating his .script to a newly introduced syntax should not be a big problem, as well as correcting the previously "wrong" syntax used.

But in reality a large numbers of .scripts, even very good/useful ones are not "properly" and constantly mantained by the original Author or by some volunteer.

For the "lazy" .script developer, the availability of such a switch may give him/her an excuse for NEVER correcting or write properly the .scripts. :)

The ones who pay the consequences of the unmantained status or of the incompatibility of a .script or project is the final user, i.e. someone that generally speaking, is a newbie and has not the knowledge/capability to introduce the changes/fixes, which turns out as dissatisfaction with (and bad name attributed to) the whole project or Winbuilder itself.

Thus a switch like the one you described seems to me a very, very good idea :) as it should:
  • allow to run projects that would otherwise be "abandoned" by users
  • facilitate the troubleshooting (it is much easier to suggest, when a problem is reported, to try 7x compatibility mode, than suggesting to download and install another version)

It would come to a price - slower building - but there ain't such things as a free meal, and it is much better to spend some minutes more in building a working "something" than to make n tries and obtain a non working "something".

In time, and as soon as the syntax becomes more stable and developers, little by little, convert the .scripts to the new one and use it in new .scripts, the feature will be used less and less.

So I say, let's call it a "provisional transition aid" and do it. :)

:(

#3 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:04 PM

This is somehow connected with the "strict" vs. "tolerant" approach that was discussed some time ago and with syntax highlighting.
For the "willing" .script developer updating his .script to a newly introduced syntax should not be a big problem, as well as correcting the previously "wrong" syntax used.
But in reality a large numbers of .scripts, even very good/useful ones are not "properly" and constantly mantained by the original Author or by some volunteer.

Thanks, Jaclaz for your comments.
As sometimes said: "Who works, makes mistakes, and who works a lot, makes many mistakes, and ..."

I think I have no reason to hire, that I had to adapt several of 'my own work' :) ) nativeEx core functions to the new more strict rules, even inside progs like HoJoPE.

Peter

#4 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:04 PM

I can not speak for everyone, but i most of all i dislike the state of constant flux we have.
My name is not Sisyphus and i do not enjoy pointless repetitive work, that will never end and never reach any goal.

If i put work into something, i want to see it pay off.
And if i'm done with a task, i wanna be done for good!

As for jaclaz and his lazy script maintainers. The only maintainance any script should ever need, should be fixing of bugs. Period.
Seriously, who in their right mind would rebuild his cars engine everytime the tires are changed?


:)

#5 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7101 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:21 PM

Seriously, who in their right mind would rebuild his cars engine everytime the tires are changed?


The F1 teams.

If you want to go fast, you need some work. :)

However, you seem in favour of the idea of adding backwards compatibility, right? :)

:)

jaclaz

#6 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 02:53 PM

However, you seem in favour of the idea of adding backwards compatibility, right? :)

I'm in favor of having a plan or at least an idea, how things should turn out in the end. Instead of this 'great idea of the day' aproach to development.

As for the backward compatibility, i have no opinion pro or con, since it will not affect me.


:)

#7 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 April 2009 - 03:35 PM

Instead of this 'great idea of the day' aproach to development.

First counter for 'Unnecessary'! :)

Peter

#8 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 04:16 PM

As a side note, i believe that most developers would have far less problems, if it would be announced, we're now doing a major rework of WB and once it is finished, things will work like this and that and will not be changed again!!!

This would give the developers the chance to rework their projects without the need for already having to have a new WB version. Sure no project/script will probably work at first run. But within a day things should be up and running fine.

Besides a rather small price to pay, to remove the damocles sword of another good or even great idea! :)


:)

#9 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 April 2009 - 04:59 PM

As a side note, i believe that most developers would have far less problems, if it would be announced, we're now doing a major rework of WB and once it is finished, things will work like this and that and will not be changed again!!!

This would give the developers the chance to rework their projects without the need for already having to have a new WB version. Sure no project/script will probably work at first run. But within a day things should be up and running fine.

Besides a rather small price to pay, to remove the damocles sword of another good or even great idea! :)


:)

:( :) :) :( :( :)

That is what I tried in W075 / 076 betas with the 'nightlies'

But that has been a total disaster.

Instead of using the latest info for tests and preparing the next project release to come simultaniously with the next WB release, there has been a wunderful chaotic situation.

We got a basar with offering the best nightly A for script B :)

And so I decided, in the next beta phase not to do it any more.

To give the possibility for serious developers to test the latest actual stage of my personal SVN, w/o any guarantee etc. I created a 'Thrash' (@allanf, that is my conspirative depot) which is currently used by some developers which in this way do what you suggested above.

Peter

BTW:

and will not be changed again!!!


Following your car's wheel and engine sample you used anywhere else:

Company A promises never to build engines to use something else than diesel.
Now OPEC decides (stupid assumption) to make it impossible to produce diesel.

Should company A silently die or should it try to create a different engine?

#10 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 05:53 PM

That is what I tried in W075 / 076 betas with the 'nightlies'

But that has been a total disaster.

I don't know what effect you exactly hoped for, but this is not what i meant.
You should have have a list of commands that are eighter new or changed right from the start and handed out instead of the nightlies a site which gives the future commands and their syntax nothing more.
Then when you think everything is ready for release. Start Beat testing. If you like with nightlies.


Following your car's wheel and engine sample you used anywhere else:

Company A promises never to build engines to use something else than diesel.
Now OPEC decides (stupid assumption) to make it impossible to produce diesel.

Should company A silently die or should it try to create a different engine?

:) You relize that you're the OPEC in that example, don't you? :)

btw. Company A, a.k.a. the project maintainers, did protest! :)


:)

#11 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 April 2009 - 06:29 PM

I don't know what effect you exactly hoped for, but this is not what i meant.
You should have have a list of commands that are eighter new or changed right from the start and handed out instead of the nightlies a site which gives the future commands and their syntax nothing more.
Then when you think everything is ready for release. Start Beat testing. If you like with nightlies.

Did you download one of the nightlies?
If yes, did you read the release notes included in the nightlies?
They contained everything what you are now asking for.

If you did not read them, what's the issue for this discussion?

Peter

#12 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 07:04 PM

did you read the release notes included in the nightlies?

Maybe i didn't made myself clear enough.

Your way:
build nightly - release nightly with a list of what's new - release new nightly with new changes and new list - release new nightly with new changes and new list - ...

All a project developer can do is eighter sit and wait for the final or constantly play catch-up

My way:
End specification are handed out before programming has even started. It doesn't matter how many versions are build cause the end result is fixed right from the start and thus:

A project developer can start preparing his project with confidence for the final release on the day your project is announced.
No need to change, adapt or having to stay up to date with what you're doing right now.
Smooth sailing!


:)

#13 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7101 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 21 April 2009 - 07:30 PM

My way:
End specification are handed out before programming has even started. It doesn't matter how many versions are build cause the end result is fixed right from the start and thus:


Maybe not "your" only. :)

http://www.boot-land...?...=6956&st=74

And history repeats:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=3851

However, though I concur that the current approach (as well as the previous one) could be much bettered, basically the only one that actually spends lots of time on Winbuilder (and I mean psc) instead of being fully supported by the community is often criticized.

Even if some of the critics may be founded, and the organization could be bettered, there is no point in beating again this dead horse.

psc has his own way to work, he used an admittedly wrong model, is now adopting a new (but still inadequate IMHO) model, I doubt he will change this in mid-run. :)

Let's see if we can try making psc arrive to a Beta the sooner possible and without distractions, and then try re-submitting a plea for a more organized approach.

The "back" compatibility feature could also be useful to let psc work "in peace", without worrying to "break" too much older "incompatible" syntaxes.

Go peter GO! :)

:)

jaclaz

#14 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 April 2009 - 09:15 PM

Thanks, Jaclaz!

Let me add some sentences from my personal point of view.

BTW: Just try to remember the changes I introduced in 074 to 076, cut the average build time to 50%.
These changes have been my personal intention w/o any specification / discussion etc. in the forum before.
If anybody is unhappy with this modifications, please post here!

I more and more get the feeling that I'm seen as employee of the forum.
More specified: I'm always open to discuss suggestions, and as known I usually brought solutions to sencefull discussions.
But I'm not willing to follow requirements to an employee.

When I joined the forum, there has been something like 'fun'.
And everything I did until now, is not only 'fun', but also my feeling that the result is an real improvement of WinBuilder.

OKI, I accept, that the forum's members may be possessed by commercial or whatever backgrounds, and cannot live without solutions which follow their requirements.

If I'm an employee, and have to do what is wanted, who pays my sallary?

Back to Jaclaz's post:

We should try to find 'rules' for development which make all parties happy.
Please give suggestions.

Peter

#15 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 21 April 2009 - 09:49 PM

Peter i did not meant to critize you in a negative manner.

You put a lot of time and work in WB and that in itself deserves a lot of gratitute.

I for one worked my whole life in the IT business, even before it was that called. :)
And there are certain ways, how things are done and those ways, do not exist because someone thought they're a good idea,
but because they have proven to work. Time and time again.


Yep, remember those good old times, when coming here was pure fun. The sky seemed to be the limit.
Any idea what went wrong?


:)

#16 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 April 2009 - 09:57 PM

Peter i did not meant to critize you in a negative manner.

You put a lot of time and work in WB and that in itself deserves a lot of gratitute.

I for one worked my whole life in the IT business, even before it was that called. :)
And there are certain ways, how things are done and those ways, do not exist because someone thought they're a good idea,
but because they have proven to work. Time and time again.


Yep, remember those good old times, when coming here was pure fun. The sky seemed to be the limit.
Any idea what went wrong?


:)

MedEvil,

Inspite we sometimes have some hard discussions, no problem with you.

I think that my main issue is this forum is

I more and more get the feeling that I'm seen as employee of the forum.

We all should concentrate on developing (as community!) new and successful solutions rather than
"I'm member of this (freeware) forum. And I demand that ..."

(maybe that I'm currently a bit over-sensitive because of some split-parameters issues)

Peter

#17 Lancelot

Lancelot

    Frequent Member

  • .script developer
  • 5013 posts
  • Location:Turkiye/Izmir
  • Interests:*Mechanical stuff and Physics,
    *LiveXP, BartPE, SherpyaXPE,
    *Basketball and Looong Walking,
    *Buying outwear for my girlf (Reason: Girls are stupid about buying bad stuff to make themselves uglier :))
    *Girls (Lyric: Girl,...., You will be a womann, Soon)
    *Answering questions for "Meaning of life",
    *Helping people,

    Kung with LiveXP, Fu with Peter :)
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 21 April 2009 - 10:13 PM

Peter,

I always admire the work you are doing on winbuilder, and yes it is still fun to me being in boot-land.

And from my point of view your idea for
System,COMPATIBILITY,{74|76}
should be ending the current discussion.
All applications upgrades to a new version which is mostly uncompatible to previous
old school rule (i know lots of example that breaks this rule)
v1 never compatible for v2 created files
v1 and v2 never compatible for v3 created files.
Compatibility goes through version and/or build numbers. ex: v1.1, v1.23 , v2.32.43 build 0456

With advantage of Peter psc being developer winbuilder having
System,COMPATIBILITY,{74|76}
breaks the old school rule and makes a fantastic direct connection between versions :) :).



But that has been a total disaster.

---> so far i know, it was a total success for LiveXP :). Upgrading from 074 to 075nightly decided after new api requirements and as you know livexp074 packed and saved before doing that :(.
So as i wrote several times before, things done one by one for livexp and we had greaaaaaaaat fun when doing that, also it helped you a lot to find new bugies on wb,
And as it was named beta :), we never complain much as others with stable.

And reminding: LiveXP never used lately nightly build to catch up,maybe 6 or 7 beta upgrade made all for a good reason.

Also when new user side version problem happened, we put a button on the script.project and a tutorial on boot-land which solved all complains --> never reported a wb version problem again :)

Only problem was you complaining us using beta !!! We accept the risks you introduced, just disobeyed a rule of you for nightly betas which Medevil obeyed (now MedEvil need to do all at once.)





Anyway, agreeing with you or not over some various cases, i still love you peter :) . You definately have a style of doing things and resulting improvements are very satisfactory not forgetting all done for fun :(.
Personally
for Medevil case, if it was me, i was satisfied System,COMPATIBILITY , so it is easier to convince me.
But also it is Just a bit hard fun to convince you getting from point A to B , sometimes months pass but as you know we always come to B

#18 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 21 April 2009 - 10:27 PM

Thanks, Lancelot!

Let me explain the "disaster"

It has not been the technical result; this has been very good, as you explained.

For me the "disaster" has been that in the forum everything run out of the developer team's control.

Peter

#19 Lancelot

Lancelot

    Frequent Member

  • .script developer
  • 5013 posts
  • Location:Turkiye/Izmir
  • Interests:*Mechanical stuff and Physics,
    *LiveXP, BartPE, SherpyaXPE,
    *Basketball and Looong Walking,
    *Buying outwear for my girlf (Reason: Girls are stupid about buying bad stuff to make themselves uglier :))
    *Girls (Lyric: Girl,...., You will be a womann, Soon)
    *Answering questions for "Meaning of life",
    *Helping people,

    Kung with LiveXP, Fu with Peter :)
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 21 April 2009 - 10:47 PM

It was fun to be out of control :) :)

Anyway, i like "slow nightly builds" for now (called betas), easier for me to catchup things :( and as you know no more frequent demands for nightly builds on forum now a days :) so life should be easier there too :). But at that times these feedbacks really boost the development of wb with your greeeeat effort (also dont forget the effort done by me trying to expain things in many posts :):) ) , Winbuilder is the fastest developed free application i've ever seen, Thank you a loot :( :(




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users