********** 10 released
Comments
-
I think a fundamental issue is the number of bugs that are cropping up in Logos 4 Mac. I am always pleased when people say that they seem to have trouble free experience. Yet if you look at the version release notes, there seem to be considerably more bugs being fixed in the Mac version of Logos. I have even considered doing an analysis of these reports to quantify them to emphasize the point. Speed aside, nearly three years on, we still don't have a relatively mature product. Something is bad wrong.
Just today I posted a graphic rendering bug in relation to the Faithlife Study Bible. I have posted bugs about rendering graphics at least on three occasions in the last four months. Yet it doesn't go away. There are also regressions in regard to popups on the prayer list that I have pointed out a couple of times, we still get the small window treatment at times when installing new resources, etc. etc, but for the most part, I don't take the time to point these issues out any more. OK, some bugs are annoyances rather than significant deal stoppers, but it appears the windows gang has the clear upper hand right now.
If you consider the amount of time that we gave to the Mac alpha releases and now the time being given to beta and full release software, one has to ask how many more years do we need to invest before we have a relatively trouble free product? I'll put up with the speed and lack of functionality to get at some of the resources, I just wished it would just work. It scares me to think that Logos 5 might be released in the next year or two when it feels that Logos 4 was never quite finished. Maybe a new version is what is needed to reboot this whole thing, but I keep hearing from even the most hard core Logos faithful that combined with the pain over Logos mac 1.x, we still hope for a better day.
When the time for Logos 5 comes, I would suggest that Logos seriously consider getting some of the long term faithful involved in the private beta testing of Logos 5 to find out how things really are if they would like a confidence check that things are on the up and up. Or maybe it just doesn't matter and the strength of resources can continue to carry the day?
I can tell you that my list of complaints is almost non-existent with Accordance. Is it perfect? No, but it is about as close to perfect as you can get in terms of trouble free 'just works' computing and I highly recommend it to all.
0 -
Logos Morph Search can find παρὰ before accusative words; albeit initial setup took longer than 30 seconds while waiting for a pop-up menu for g:para (seems many words begin with παρὰ). Syntax search can find παρὰ before accusative words in the same phrase.
I don't really want to be part of this discussion. I was just responding to Lynden's question when I posted the remark about syntax searching. I have over $20k invested in Logos, so I am not interested in advertising Accordance. I was merely pointing out a strength of that application in comparison to Logos 4. Father Matheny posted an excellent comparison 390962.aspx
What irritates me most about Logos 4 Mac are the continually spinning beach-balls (pizzas) that cause even simple operations to take minutes instead of seconds. I have submitted bug reports on this that remain unacknowledged by Logos. Now, that is irritating.
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
I just wished it would just work.
+1 [Y] for Logos 4 on Mac and PC, which is part of motivation for WIki list of Feature Parity – Mac needs many improvements
Donovan R. Palmer said:It scares me to think that Logos 5 might be released in the next year or two when it feels that Logos 4 was never quite finished. Maybe a new version is what is needed to reboot this whole thing, but I keep hearing from even the most hard core Logos faithful that combined with the pain over Logos mac 1.x, we still hope for a better day.
Personally Thankful for visual filter highlighting in Logos 4, which was not in Logos for Mac v1.2.2 (still have dmg from 17 Sep 2009); dreaming about sharing highlighting palettes and visual filters.
Likewise hoping for a better Bible study experience using Logos plus looking forward to Logos 5 improvements along with anticipation of Logos 5 working well on Mac and PC.
Personally puzzled by a number of Logos 4 crashes/issues on Mac and PC with SQLite database files and some sync issues.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
I just wish Logos for mac would work. I have no Logos software again, Dead, no function at all, won't even try to open.
Here is the deal: Logos has never had any trouble with my MONEY. My Money has never crashed on them, it has always worked for them, it has never failed them.
On payment plan things I have bought, I have never been late, never failed, never been slow.
0 -
I might add another huge difference between Professional Software and a Library Program. I can "always" get tech support with Professional Software, one cannot with Logos. Logos closes on weekends and does not provide help at night.
Accordance can always be reached for help.
0 -
tom collinge said:
IMHO, Logos is now a company that wants to be the Walmart for the electronic Christian culture. Do you want a program to study the bible, we have that (L4). Do you want a program to display slides on a screen during worship, we have that (proclaim). Do you want a christian social media website, we have that (faithlife.com). Do you want to read christian fiction, we have that (vysro). Do you want an electronic study bible, we have that too (faithlife study bible).
Yes, we do have a bigger ambition: instead of just serving the two people in each church who were serous about Bible study ("the pastor, and that other guy...") <smile>, we are trying to serve the larger market of digital Christian content consumers. We're also trying to help our users connect to the other people in their churches, classrooms, and "faithlife" who want to share notes, read books together, conduct small group BIble studies, etc. While this means we have many different customer-facing products, as you point out, I think you'll find that they are all connected: none of them is a stand-alone product, and each -- including Proclaim -- has many connections to our broader platform.
tom collinge said:IMHO, I think Bob has made some bad decisions, and because of this Logos is stretched very thin.
Yes, I have made plenty of bad decisions. And I expect many more bad decisions, unless I stop trying to do new and interesting things. I hope the bad decisions don't outweigh the good ones, and that the net result is that we move ahead and serve you better, but we'll have to see. I believe that if we aren't having some failures, it means we aren't trying enough new things. I wouldn't want to work somewhere no bad decisions were made.
Yes, we are stretched. Too much? Maybe, maybe not. We'll see. Part of it is our decision to build a broader platform, and part of it is the wider hardware/software platform proliferation. It's not as easy as it was 5 years ago, when developing for desktop Windows meant you covered 95% of the market.
tom collinge said:Bob guessed wrong with L4 and the platform they used to build it.
Yep. We thought WPF had a long-term future, and that desktop Windows would continue to be the most important platform. We called that wrong. I'm sorry. We're now working hard to address the consequences of those poor predictions of the future (made around 2006, in our defense).
I was wrong. I was wrong, I was wrong, I was wrong. The Mac IS important, mobile is driving the future, and WPF is a dead-end. Those who told us we were wrong in 2009 were right.
Do we all feel better now? :-) I know I do. Now, can we drop this point and stop castigating Logos for this horrible, terrible decision? Practically speaking, there's no way for us to travel back in time and not choose WPF, nor can we re-write Logos 4 without it. We will continue to suffer consequences in performance and cross-platform coding issues. We are working to fix these issues, but it's going to take time. In some cases we are re-writing components in C++ for better performance, in other cases we are hand-coding Mac-native implementations of shared code, in other cases we are writing our own implementations of WPF-provided functionality. It will get better, but it'll take time. (And, in case you forgot, it's my fault.) :-)
tom collinge said:(from bob's statement to write code first, and design, debug, and optimize later)
If you're going to keep attacking this, let's at least get it right. The quote is: "Code first, optimize later." This is good practice, and I stand by it. You don't know where real performance problems are until you implement. And sometimes performance is dramatically different on different platforms; we often use the same code on Windows, Mac, iOS, Android and server-side web. Platform differences (in the time system memory allocation requires, for example) can be dramatic.
For the record, design precedes coding, and includes multiple phases: "interaction design", where we get the feature, usability, and basic look right, and "technical architecture", where we plan the data structures, coding patterns, etc. "Graphic design" is done both before coding and then again "in the code" on the actual implementation. (You can see what our actual specifications look like here: https://faithlife.com/whatsnext These are all for Faithlife.com, but we do the same for our Bible software products, too. Even Logos.com is starting to get this treatment for new features.)
And debugging can't precede coding, by definition, so I don't see the crime in its placement in the workflow.
tom collinge said:IMHO, I also think Bob has guessed wrong with faithlife.com.
Could be. But we don't need Faithlife to be adopted by every Christian with a computer or mobile phone (though we'd welcome that). It offers lots of useful functionality for the groups that collaboratively edit Proclaim presentations, classes that use Logos Bible Software, and more. We'd love to see it get widespread adoption, and we're planning for that, but it will be useful even if only for our users. You'll see tighter integration between all our products and Faithlife.com in the coming months. I think you'll find it really useful, even if you never do anything with anyone else there.
0 -
Graham Owen said:
Given that 30th October will be the third anniversary of my upgrade to Version 4 it would be nice to see:
- As many of the as yet missing features completed by that date as possible.
- A commitment from Logos with dates for any features they cannot deliver by that date.
We've been working hard on "missing" features. After 4.6 goes live (it's in beta now) I believe the only significant missing feature will be Sermon File. If there's anything else I'm forgetting, please remind me.
Graham Owen said:Areas that need focus are:
- Notes, is it really all down to WPF?
- Displaying search results - forget the search complete in .nn seconds for me it is not over until the results are displayed.
Yes, it is WPF's fault on Windows. (The notes typing performance.) And the notes issues on Mac relate to the differences in the native text editor there. We've been addressing many notes functionality issues already -- like the new "split" view in 4.6 beta.
To address notes typing performance we are turning our display engine into an editor. This is a massive project that someone has already been working on for months. We hope this will address the performance issues when typing, but we won't know how much better it is until we're a little further along and can run some comparison tests. The plan is to release this in an upcoming beta, though I can't yet say when.
Displaying search results is something of a WPF issue, too. I believe you'll find the Bible search results (in grid format) are the fastest to display. That's because they aren't shown as a page full of WPF text objects, but rather are "painted" onto a single display surface. This is much more difficult than using the built-in layout features, and requires our doing all the layout ourselves, but it's faster. Hand-coding these optimized displays is very time-consuming, but may be our best solution. (Though we're hoping new versions of .NET may help here; I'm not sure yet.)
0 -
Donovan R. Palmer said:
I am tracking seven issues that I am hoping is fixed in a future release. (all are reported and others have noted them on this forum)
Is it safe to assume these are all Mac issues? I've checked your recent postings, and they seem to be about Mac bugs. I'm afraid I don't know as much about the Mac platform as I do about Windows, but I do know that we're working on fixing outstanding Mac-specific issues. As explained in other posts, many recent regressions relate to some particularly significant platform changes in Mono and Xcode, so these things should stabilize now. Other issues relate to platform differences, or simply the fact that our code and experience are 17 years less mature on the Mac.
Feel free to email me (bob@logos.com) your specific issues so I can look into them. I know you've posted them in forums, but I don't see every post, and sometimes it's hard to sort out "ongoing issues" from the miscellaneous bug reports that come in, are fixed in the next release, etc.
0 -
Robert C. Beckman Jr. said:
4. There are some Logos 4 features which make me tingle every time I use them. The analysis tab in Search which allows you to turn you search into a pivot table; WOW. But you can't graph the resulting table, nor can you print it.
Most of the results in the "pivot table" are textual; how would you like to see them graphed? Or do you just expect graphing when there are numerical results?
0 -
Dear Mr Pritchett: Good posts. I would agree mistakes are part of trying. Old racing quote" If you aren't wrecking, your not trying to get faster".
However, I have not had three weeks in a row of Logos for Mac working since I have owned it. I have called customer support, reported bugs, had screenshares, been helped on the forums more than I can express. But still, when logos works, it opens in a little box and some new place on or off screen, or it crashes, or , as it is now, will not open at all. I have a lot of money tied up in software with your company that I often cannot use or does not work well. I am not looking for an Apology or for who to blame. What I am looking for is the product I bought to work properly. To be honest, the feature parity things is of absolutely no concern to me, I would not even mind if logos lost some features if it means the software would function properly and do so on a consistent basis. I could care less what features the Windows folks have on their side, I don't spend any time coveting their world. I just want the product we bought over here on the Mac side to work as advertised and to do so with some consistency . Again, not trying to "bust your chops" , don't need apologies , what I need and over all what I think others keep trying to say is simply that we need this product fixed. You have the greatest Resources available on any platform, you have a nice interface, you just don't have software that works well. Again, just trying to be open and honest. Really, the only problem is the software does not work well.
Thanks
0 -
I would like to add one more thing: Having the greatest resources and great features does us absolutely no good workflow wise if we cannot depend on the software to support the library and feature sets. Having a nice car in the driveway that does not run is not transportation .
Blessings
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
After 4.6 goes live (it's in beta now) I believe the only significant missing feature will be Sermon File. If there's anything else I'm forgetting, please remind me.
Thanks for taking time to respond, as far as I know it is only the Sermon File Addon that is left, it would be good if a working version of this was available before the XP version freeze. I'm sure that you have already given this some thought as there is bound to be at least one person out there who is currently on XP and is waiting for the Sermon File Add On....
Bob Pritchett said:Yes, it is WPF's fault on Windows. (The notes typing performance.)
Bob Pritchett said:Displaying search results is something of a WPF issue, too.
If it's any consolation I agree with you that the person who never made a mistake never made anything and that with hindsight I'm sure Logos 4 would be a WPF free zone. In fairness the search display issue is more one of perception than real performance as the screen becomes 'active' fairly quickly the only issue then is the amount of resource that is consumed in the 'background' as the display layout is being built as I find that when I click a link the system is not that responsive and the resource takes a while to open. Is there anyway that the on going screen build can be made a lower priority so that the user response is faster?
Also, I think that the visual queues on the screen are a bit misleading and I have to remind myself that I don't have to wait for the moving squares to stop. I suspect that many new users wait for the squares to stop before they start using the results.
So I guess what I'm saying is that the slow build may be less of an issue than the perception that it creates (if that makes sense).
God Bless
Graham
Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke
0 -
0
-
David B Phillips said:
Graphical Queries!
We do not have plans to bring forward the old system of graphic queries; we believe the new syntax search capabilities replace that. (We also are planning some other new search interfaces for the future that we think will be better than both graphical and syntax search for specific cases.)
0 -
Thanks for the response! I look forward to seeing what is planned for the future
0 -
Hi Bob, once again thanks for responding to my post, and for the most part, I agree with your post. Because it is very boring talking about where we agree, I will share the areas where we will have to agree to disagree.
The first is:
Bob Pritchett said:If you're going to keep attacking this, let's at least get it right. The quote is: "Code first, optimize later." This is good practice, and I stand by it. You don't know where real performance problems are until you implement. And sometimes performance is dramatically different on different platforms; we often use the same code on Windows, Mac, iOS, Android and server-side web. Platform differences (in the time system memory allocation requires, for example) can be dramatic.
I believe that optimization needs to be at the very beginning of the design process. While it is true that new items do pop up during implementation, it should not be used as an excuse of not doing it during the design phase.
FWIW, from a former developer/designer, it looks to me that coding went before/during the design phase. For an example, notes and clippings are basically the same thing. The programming code for these two items could have been shared. Why do clippings have tags and notes don't (and IMHO - notes is what needs the tags - and a much more robust tagging system than what is in L4).
Bob, I do think that our main difference comes from the fact that I am not an early adapter. On the bell curve, I believe that it is important to be at the part of the bell curve when it starts to make its turn up. This allows me to learn from the mistakes from the early adapters. I also believe that you must include the people who are not early adapters into the product because they many many many many many many more of them than early adapters. When you design something for the future - the future doesn't always comes.
Bob Pritchett said:tom collinge said:IMHO, I also think Bob has guessed wrong with faithlife.com.
Could be. But we don't need Faithlife to be adopted by every Christian with a computer or mobile phone (though we'd welcome that). It offers lots of useful functionality for the groups that collaboratively edit Proclaim presentations, classes that use Logos Bible Software, and more. We'd love to see it get widespread adoption, and we're planning for that, but it will be useful even if only for our users. You'll see tighter integration between all our products and Faithlife.com in the coming months. I think you'll find it really useful, even if you never do anything with anyone else there.
And again, for the most part, I agree with you. But I would have done in much smaller steps. For an example, I would have only designed and put into production for the group that I believed would use it the most to see how it was adopted by those users. If it was successful, I would then expand it for the next group.
IMHO, faithlife.com is trying to be all things to all users too soon. Thus, why it is not being used that much.
I agree it will be helpful for your users, but did the cost exceed the benefits (i.e. would something smaller and cheaper done the same thing)? Only time will tell.
Again, thanks for taking the time out of your day to respond to my post.
0 -
1. Thank you for addressing the group. As a Bivocational Pastor in don't get back to the forums every day and it was gratifying to see your many responses.
2. Primarily in searches for verbal structures on large amounts of text (I'm preaching from Ephesians so: All the verbs in Ephesians, I can get a table which organizes the verbs by tense and mood, It would be helpful to have a graphic representation of finite vs. infinitives and participles, or visually picture all of the subjunctives together, all of of the imperatives, etc.
3. Some of us neanderthals, migrants to this electronic culture, (bless us) pretty much want to print everything. If its on the screen I'm gonna want it on paper. [:)] Those detailed, indented lists on the screen would be handy to mark up with a good ol' pencil
0 -
The broader resources from antiquity (duke Papyri, Perseus classics, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and others we might not even know about yet) are going to require the ability to further refine search criteria. A data-set that spans several centuries will at least need the ability to narrow the search down chronologically. I think that it is exciting that Logos can help define the way that searches are conducted between biblical and other corpus's of materials. I think the coders understand that searching for all forms of all words in "classics" or "Duke Papyri" is not going to cut it. The exciting thing will be figuring out how to do a biblical search and then move the mining criteria into a parallel corpus. Sadly, I can see how the graphical search paradigm does not fit as the search interests of the program grow.
0 -
Bob,
Please let me urge you to reconsider the idea that syntax searching replaces some kind of improved morphological query interface. First, the syntax search function in Logos for Mac has been plagued by unexplained problems. One day it works for a given group of users, another day its broken. Scatterings of this can be seen on this forum over the past year. The problems of Logos development on the Mac have been beaten to death already, but syntax searching may well be a causality of this.
Second, there is really no documentation for syntax searching. Take a look at how your competitor rolled out this feature. Their documentation made it possible to work with syntax searching from the first day. I had stuff I could read that explained the tagging, terminology and query methodology. The syntax search interface was an extension of the morphological interface....it felt comfortable and made sense. In contrast, learning to use syntax searches on Logos is a time investment too few of us have.
Third, the body of literature that can be searched using syntax tags is minute in comparison to the collection with the older morphological tagging. I remain grateful every day for the Perseus collection but don't use it to its fullest because of the limitations of morphological searching in Logos. I'd spend serious money for the ability to use the old Graphic Query editor in 4 to do searches in this collection. I'm sure that syntax tagging opens up new possibilities, but I'm skeptical that we will transition from morphological to syntax searching as a mainstay in the next several years.
0 -
Bob,
This is a well reasoned reply and thank you for taking the time to write this response. As a user of both products, each has its merits and deficiencies. Having recently upgraded to Accordance 10, and to make an impolite quote, v10 is "lipstick on the pig."
Similar to Logos poor choice in development technologies, OakTree continues to develop a carbon App with an inefficient cocoa wrapper to make it look a little nicer (customizable toolbar and the new integrated window). There are other examples I could cite, although what is important here to note is that as long as the users are happy and the respective company can deliver on the product goals/user needs, then everyone wins.
As a former software product manager, I applaud Logos for continuing to develop new ways to further their business and offer value to their users. Each of these new venues is in its infancy, and with the right nurturing will make them worthwhile in the long term. Taking the chance is what makes entrepreneurs great. Making mistakes is what makes us learn. Living in fear is not an option and I applaud you and your team for having the courage to move the needle forward.
Please keep making great software, even though it might have imperfections (performance being a key item whereby I agree with this constituency), so that we can continue to learn and grow in our respective faiths.
Cordially,
Matthew
0 -
Okie, dokie, Matthew. 'Lipstick on a pig.' Of course you're referring to a Mac, but hopefully next year I'll be investing in the Windows version. I don't know if you want to expand on that comment?
But I'd say your last paragraph kind of over-writes your second paragraph. Kind of like complementing Volkswagon for great new features on the under-powered microbuses Maybe an improved engine might be a good thing?
The only reason I 'whine' so much about Logos is they forget that book-software users don't really have a choice; they're 'married' to the software. And when Bob and Co progressively move along platforms, but can't seem to produce efficient software (though they used to), then all the cutsy falls on deaf ears.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
DMB,
Yes, I was referring to the Mac version. I can't comment on a product (Accordance for Windows) that has only been announced and isn't in any level of public availability.
To expand upon my statement from the original post (lipstick…), since moving to OS X, Accordance has been a Carbon-based App. Accordance wasn't rewritten for Cocoa, so it can't support the following:
- 64bit
- New OS X Technologies (OpenCL, GCD, Gestures, fullscreen, notifications, etc.)
If you look at the rest of the Accordance v10 UI, (outside of the primary window), the rest is still rooted in Aqua/Carbon.
To your point about complementing (my last paragraph), it isn't orthogonal to my post as the facts are stated (and I was replying to Bob - whom i agree with on when it comes to software development methodology and business development). Logos (the business) has diversified. What some view as bad choices, others view as prosperous.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the performance of Logos is lacking. I have a fast MacBook Air (SSD, 4GB RAM, 1.8Ghz Core i7) and still see some beach-balls when performing minor tasks (viewing preferences, for example). Yes, this lack of performance is disappointing. However, I make the trade-off of some performance for the overall usefulness of the App.
Next, I disagree about product choice. On the Mac, there are many products available for biblical study (Accordance, BibleReader, Glo, Logos, Sword and more). Windows also has a plethora of Apps that provide choice and as Mac users, we can run these Apps in virtualization if we so choose. In the Mobile space, there are even more choices that are faith specific as well as staking new ground in how we interact with scripture.
Further, let me expand upon the auto analogy. Once one has purchased a VW with a four cylinder, it's unreasonable to expect that over the course of ownership, it will become a Ferrari. It's always going to be a VW. When a new VW (same model, new model year) is released, you have the choice to purchase it, not purchase it (and keep the one you have), or switch to another brand. Again, you have choice.
For those who own the product, what benefits have you had as well as what utility have you received vs. the problems you've uncovered? If the former is more prevalent than the latter, then consider how we can provide meaningful feedback to Logos so that they can prioritize their development schedule. We can always vote with our pocketbooks by not supporting Logos or any other bible software developer. Once again, we have freedom of choice.
I hope that this message doesn't come across condescending as that isn't the intent. I am merely conveying what this mere mortal has experienced over 20 years of software development as someone who has sat on both sides of the spectrum.
Cordially,
Matthew
0 -
Dear Matthew: So your saying: Accordance, which is very fast, efficiant and does the very best searches in Ancient languages ( not to mention complex and "search all searches in a blink) is inferior technology to Logos using Mono and other windows frameworks to produce a Mac product that is slow, clunky, prone to crashes and strange openings? While I love my Logos Library and Own a lot of Biblical Software on Two Platforms ( Windows and Mac) I cannot understand your thinking on this, other than personal preference. Personal Preference has nothing to do with Objective Truth.
When it comes to resources, Objective Truth is : Logos is far and away the leader of everyone in this field no matter the Platform.
When it comes to Macs and performance: Accordance leads the field , no contest.
When it comes to complex searching on the Mac: Again, Accordance leads the field.
When we get to personal preferences, then we get into subjective responses. Some people like all kinds of "bells and whistles" colorful results and all kinds of social connections, other people want more of a "just the facts " response from the software. This has always been the case in this field of software. Thus you find many/most Academics have been drawn to Bibleworks, Accordance etc, and a huge "other" market to which Logos, Biblesoft etc. have appealed.
0 -
Fr. Charles.
I am sorry if what I wrote implied that I thought Mono/WPF was a better platform than Carbon. In fact, neither are ideal, especially on the Mac. And yes, Accordance is much faster than Logos - I never stated otherwise. My comments were on the GUI, not the overall user experience (which does include software performance).
I also agree with you in what users desire/personal preferences. As I mentioned, I own both products (and use them differently). In fact OakTree is practically a stone's through from my home and I have met with their team on a few occasions (they are wonderful people).
As I stated, it's about choice. We all can choose to use whichever package we want to suit whatever purpose. However, once the choice is made, I believe it is more prosperous to focus on providing productive feedback rather than devolving into negative discussions.
I hope this helps.
Matthew
0 -
BTW I personally don't care what code the software is written in, what I care about is pretty simple: Does it work?
This is a Mac principle, a Steve Jobs thought process. For instance, there are a lot of computer "specs" on the market that do not result in good computers because build quality is poor.
There are many software examples that are, have been, built with the very best and most cutting edge code, that were/are absolutely horrible ( speaking of many types of software, not those of this thread).
What "matters" is if a tool does the job it was designed to do and does it do that job well, this is what matters at the end of the day.
Example: Steve Jobs made a point that the average person picking up an iPad at the counter to see what it is, does not care about processor and all the specs. What matters is the experience they have holding that device and, does it enhance their life in ways that matter to them. About the only "spec" that matters is storage capacity. This has proven, over and over, to be true. Only we somewhat "geeky types" and, people like yourself that write code, really have any interest in specs. The spec that matters the most, to everyone though is simply: How well does it work, how is the product experienced.
0 -
Sorry, we posted at the same time.
Agreed.
0 -
Matthew,
completely OT & unrelated, but as I am not a native speaker and read into a document just yesterday that was recommended here in the forum and makes a lot out of typos in ancient documents to re-establish an alleged Koine pronunciation: I assume you meant "stone's throw" above when you wrote "stone's through" - do you pronounce throw and through alike?
I'd have thought that "throw" rhymes with "plow" or even "go", whereas "through" rhymes with "blue". Not to pick on a typo, but sometimes I find out things about pronunciation of English I never would have dreamed of...
Mick
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Mick,
I am laughing now due to the lovely autocorrect feature on the iPad. Thank you for pointing out the error, as I did mean to say "throw."
Matthew
0 -
Thanks!
Have joy in the Lord!
0
