@Birbo

Quote:

Birbo wrote: What do you think is going on with the website amiga.com?

No idea (reads 'no comment"), sorry.

_________________
Jamie Krueger
BITbyBIT Software Group LLC
jamie@bitbybitsoftwaregroup.com
PLEASE NOTE: I only speak for myself and my company,
and am not a spokesperson for Amiga Inc.

@Minuous

Quote:

Minuous wrote: The site is very sparse on details, but I get the impression that it's like ReActor except that it won't run on OS3.9 and costs $200. I'll pass on that.

I am not sure which details about AVD you did not find
on my website, can you provide an example of what you
were looking for?

Backporting AVD to AmigaOS3.x or even porting it to Aros, MorphOS, etc.
is not an impossibility. I do plan for example, to write "GuiBits" runtime
interpreters for all three of those platforms. Being that the resulting program
would be created on the fly from a description file, the native interpreter
can adapt to using different gui toolkits, using MUI instead of ReAction
for example.

Porting all of AVD to other platforms would take more effort, but has not
been dismissed as a possibility. However, the first version, and the baseline
for AVD is AmigaOS4. All other versions would be built on that code base.

At this point, having more than four years of foundation development work
into AVD, and having returned to complete it's development, I do not intend
to release it as Open Source. I would consider partnership with key developers
interested in bringing AVD to other platforms, but the sources will remain
closed and AVD a commercial effort.

Of course, as promised, I will be releasing FreeAVD, a complete suite of tools
distributed freely and licensed to produce FREEWARE software.

Best Regards,

Jamie Krueger

_________________
Jamie Krueger
BITbyBIT Software Group LLC
jamie@bitbybitsoftwaregroup.com
PLEASE NOTE: I only speak for myself and my company,
and am not a spokesperson for Amiga Inc.

@JamieKrueger

Good to have you back and resuming AVD - I'm looking forward to the releases of both the 2.0 SDK browser and the continued AVD betas. And your plans about the "GuiBits" concept sound very interesting as well.

Keep up the good work! It is very much appreciated.

Best regards,

Niels

@JamieKrueger

I'm also glad you restarted your work on AVD. I look forward for the final version. At your site you are saying that the price is pre-release sale. This means that the final version will cost more???

Keep up the good work.

_________________
Amiga-Look.org - Beautify your Workbench

@JamieKrueger

Good to see some progress on your won product again.

I discovered some "quirks" on the project homepage:
"The SDK Browser provides any Amiga(tm) Programmer"

- You wrote Amiga(tm) when you meant AmigaOS4, that might cause troubles with people owning this trademark (Amiga Inc., C=USA).

- It is hard to find out what OSes you support.

_________________
AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.

I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0

@JamieKrueger

Nice to hear that you might support other platforms and toolkits in the future. Then I might buy your software, if and when you support OS 3.x :)

@Minuous

Quote:

I get the impression that it's like ReActor except that it won't run on OS3.9 and costs $200. I'll pass on that.

ReActor created a "GUI resource", a blackbox binary file handled by resource.library. While the GUI Builder looks like it'll generate actual program code. So the comparison is not really apt.

Last edited by Trixie on 31-Oct-2010 at 05:34 PM.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@walkero

Quote:

walkero wrote: At your site you are saying that the price is pre-release sale. This means that the final version will cost more???

Yes, the list price of the commercial version of the AVD Suite is $300.
Since I am accepting sales prior to the software being completed (in
an effort to fund full time development), I am offering it for $100 less
for those willing to take the risk until AVD v1.0 is actually ready.

_________________
Jamie Krueger
BITbyBIT Software Group LLC
jamie@bitbybitsoftwaregroup.com
PLEASE NOTE: I only speak for myself and my company,
and am not a spokesperson for Amiga Inc.

@Arko

Quote:

Arko wrote: @JamieKrueger Good to see some progress on your won product again. I discovered some "quirks" on the project homepage: "The SDK Browser provides any Amiga(tm) Programmer" - You wrote Amiga(tm) when you meant AmigaOS4, that might cause troubles with people owning this trademark (Amiga Inc., C=USA). - It is hard to find out what OSes you support.

Thanks, I'll look into that.

_________________
Jamie Krueger
BITbyBIT Software Group LLC
jamie@bitbybitsoftwaregroup.com
PLEASE NOTE: I only speak for myself and my company,
and am not a spokesperson for Amiga Inc.

@Trixie

Quote:

Trixie wrote: @Minuous ReActor created a "GUI resource", a blackbox binary file handled by resource.library. While the GUI Builder looks like it'll generate actual program code. So the comparison is not really apt.

That is correct. The commercial version of AVD actually writes the direct
C source to produce the GUI within one of the AVD Template applications.
(modifying designated areas within the "create" and "process events" functions
for example.) So from there you can directly compile your application and
it will run without the need of any AVD runtime libraries.

FreeAVD on the other hand will use an AVD shared library which builds the
GUI interface for you, much like the way GuiBits builds entire programs on
the fly. This use of the shared library and interface description (internal code
block), is necessary for FreeAVD to enforce the resulting program is licensed
as FREEWARE (it will add text to that effect in under the "About" menu option
of each program).

Again, commercial AVD will produce the direct sources to build a ReAction
interface, while FreeAVD will make use of the closed interface description
block and a distributed shared library to support building the GUI at runtime.

You may still choice to use the runtime GUI building method when building
your project with commerical AVD as it is very fast and simple to use, but that
will be your option. I would also suspect that some advanced runtime features
you may use when creating applications with AVD would be supported by distributed
shared libraries, but I will try to provide a static linking option for those who
wish to build everything into a single binary file.

As far as otherwise comparing ReActor to AVD, IMHO I found ReActor more
difficult to use than was necessary. Not too bad, but limited in some areas
and I did not care for being forced to use the "blackbox" file method myself.
This is why commercial AVD does not take that approach.

Last edited by JamieKrueger on 31-Oct-2010 at 06:48 PM.

_________________
Jamie Krueger
BITbyBIT Software Group LLC
jamie@bitbybitsoftwaregroup.com
PLEASE NOTE: I only speak for myself and my company,
and am not a spokesperson for Amiga Inc.

@Channel_Z

Quote:

Channel_Z wrote: @JamieKrueger Nice to hear that you might support other platforms and toolkits in the future. Then I might buy your software, if and when you support OS 3.x :)

I will see what I can do, I would like to see support of AmigaOS3.x/Aros/MorphOS myself.

This brings up and interesting question I would like some feedback on.

Which of the following would you be most interested in, and more willing
to pay for?

1.) A "straight" port of AVD that ran on other platforms (In others words,
a suite of tools that ran under AmigaOS3.x, Aros, MorphOS, Linux, Mac,
Windows, etc. that used the AmigaOS4 SDK and cross compilers to
build code *only* for AmigaOS4)?

2.) A "native" port of AVD for the respective OS, that built programs for that OS?
(eg. AVD for AmigaOS3.x builds apps for AmigaOS3.x only)

3.) A "native" port of AVD which supported multiple SDKs and uses native
and cross compilers to build apps for each of the respective target OSes.*

* In the case of number 3, should the port of AVD target building only for
AmigaOS-like operating systems (Linux/Mac/Windows versions that builds
for AmigaOS4/AmigaOS3/Aros/MorphOS and not Linux/Mac/Windows)?

_________________
Jamie Krueger
BITbyBIT Software Group LLC
jamie@bitbybitsoftwaregroup.com
PLEASE NOTE: I only speak for myself and my company,
and am not a spokesperson for Amiga Inc.

@JamieKrueger
Quote:

Which of the following would you be most interested in, and more willing to pay for?

For comparisation, if I was to buy the Hollywood program suite today, I would definately be most tempted to buy the bundle that includes the Amiga (all flavours) and the Windows version. It can create executables for all these plattforms, and even for the Mac as well.

Many users may have an Amiga at home, but use a PC at work or a laptop on travels etc. and it would then be easier to bring the projects with them if windows also is supported.

And I suspect it also could ensure you a more steady income from AVD if you also have a version for windows that can create windows apps as well.

@amyren

The only easy way of making portable code is like Hollywood, to use LUA scripting engine or other script.

Once written in script form it can be compiled/converted to different Amiga versions.

Object Orientated class/template would take care of language, functions to handle different API.

XML hold the descriptive structure is excellent.

The problem in Amiga world is we keep writing a 'language and IDE' that is not portable, so we reinvent the wheel for each language and each platform.

So most developer tools remain in primitive state, rather than being improved into portable objects or into larger frameworks.

Keep up the great work Jamie !

Personally I prefer platform independent code or converted to platform specifically. I know its hard work, so you decide what work you can manage to what platform and its fine by me.

Along with a great IDE we also need a game creation suite.

_________________
Download 499.26 Mbps, 659.94 Mbps Upload :)

@kas1e:

>You forget to ask about aos1.0 and win3.1 support as well

No forgetting is involved. When have I ever asked anyone about eg. Win3.1 support?

@Varthall:

>A Reaction GUI builder would be useless on AROS and MorphOS.

On AROS, yes, but not on MorphOS. ReAction stuff works on MorphOS, eg. AmiArcadia.

@asymetrix

Quote:

asymetrix wrote: @amyren The only easy way of making portable code is like Hollywood, to use LUA scripting engine or other script. Once written in script form it can be compiled/converted to different Amiga versions. Object Orientated class/template would take care of language, functions to handle different API. XML hold the descriptive structure is excellent.

LLVM Bitcode doesn't need a scripting language. It is a low-level, register layout independent intermediate representation of machine code. It does all of the optimization for you.

The only reason I'd use XML or any other high-level construct to hold code would be if I was making a graphical language like the AmigaVision flow editor. It's not a bad idea but it would make more work for Jamie.

@Minuous

Quote:

On AROS, yes, but not on MorphOS. ReAction stuff works on MorphOS, eg. AmiArcadia.

In theory yes, in practice .....

I for one deleted all ClassAct/Reaction stuff when MorphOS started to come bundled with Voyager-PPC (must have been at 1.3 or 1.4) and therefore had no need to continue useing AWeb. Beelzebub will be ice-skating in his living room long before I'm gonna change that.

Don't think I'm alone on that one

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada