Simply existing won’t draw in users <- is exactly right!stam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:13 amThis is, as you may have guessed, the point of my comment.
Simply existing won’t draw in users. IMHO if OXT is to become sustainable, thrive and draw in more developers and users it has to offer something above and beyond rather than being a pale imitation.
Given the resources that LC have, competing on a feature by feature basis is going to be hard.
However the tools for an OOP approach are there; just not encouraged by the language and IDE. If OXT were to change that it may actually be a preferable destination for many… if marketing itself as object-oriented xTalk that would, I suspect, be a selling point for many non-LC-users.
Or maybe not - but just being a “free” pale imitation will only work for so long and then slowly disappear I suspect.
But OXT doesn't have to 'compete', because it isn't a commercial product, and I'll keep trying to sustain the LC CE based engine and perhaps other FOSS xTalk engines too, as long as I can still breath.
>to become sustainable, thrive and draw in more developers and users it has to offer something above and beyond rather than being a pale imitation.
I didn't come in here to talk OXT (as I pretty much gave my word that I wouldn't), I came for the OOP/Inheritance discussion.
However since its already being talked about here, I will just say that OXT is NOT just an unbranded Community Edition IDE, and I don't intend for it to ever become stagnant. Although the differentiating un-brand bits has been a primary focus for the first year +, it has in fact already become a different thing from LC CE 9.6.3, including more/different graphics resources, new/ different features, and bug fixes, beyond the state that it was left in Sept. 2021. And I'm still working on it every chance I get.