realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RB love hate

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: RB love hate
From: Giovanni <rbml at alphaview dot com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:50:45 -0700
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com designates 66.116.103.65 as permitted sender) smtp dot mail=realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <380-220085530145240752 at M2W007 dot mail2web dot com>
RS is cracking down on bugs, hence why some bugs become exposed.

2008r2 was a dud for me, but to others it was a blessing.

The best way to handle this is to support RS efforts by upgrading but  
also providing a note regarding what you spect.

Giovanni
•••••••••••••••••

On May 30, 2008, at 7:52 AM, "realbasic at tabberer dot com" <realbasic at 
tabberer dot com 
 > wrote:

>> There hasn't been anything really "must have" for ages now.
>
>> Sure - its great and proper for RS to really crack down on all  
>> those bugs,
>> but for those out there happy to stay on earlier and safer releases  
>> it
> will
>> really require something significant for me to justify jumping and  
>> endure
>> all the flakiness of the new release.
>
>  This statement is so full of contradictions, and yet, so sadly  
> accurate.
>
>  If RS really was cracking down on bugs, then how can older versions  
> be
> safer and newer versions be flaky? The problem is, that for every  
> bug they
> fix, they introduce a new bug somewhere else. So people stay with  
> the devil
> they know instead of upgrading to a new, equally buggy, devil. If RS
> actually did release a version that was vastly less buggy, then I,  
> and I'm
> sure many others, would consider that a significant reason to upgrade.
>
>  A solid, bug fix only release is about as "must have" as it can  
> get. And
> those bugs include fixing the recently "deemphasized" features too.  
> That
> way we have a solid release to keep projects on that require the
> deemphasized features, while we decide whether to move the project to
> different tools or sunset the projects. Plus, what better place to  
> start
> adding new "must have" features, than on a solid foundation? As it  
> stands
> now, any new features would simply be built on the same flaky base  
> that we
> have now. And what would be the point of upgrading to that?
>
> --Seth
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
> <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
>
> Search the archives:
> <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>