Rik Negus wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:57 pm
Has anyone being in communication with Todd?
As it stands if he does not let the program go it has no future and no value. I will only have value if time is invested in it to bring the code up to date with current standards.
Is Todd willing to make the list of current licence holder available so that they maybe polled on their view points, how many are willing to invest in a new version?
What would be the cost and time involved to update the program? I don't know a thing about programming, Alfred what is your perspective? Yes I know only one woman can give birth to a baby but .........
To allow this program to die would be a crime, I have 31 years invested in it, there are no substitutes of equal quality.
Todd, lead, follow or get out of the way, we the users want to move forward and are ready to put our money up to prove it.
For me, as I have said before, having Trimble take it over would be the most ideal situation in that they have the resources to carry PowerCadd forward.
For now as long as I don't update my OS it works, but this can not go on forever.
I'm sure you would have an interesting array of thoughts and emotions were I, without any training or knowledge, and without a view from the inside, to suggest how to save a design you created. There has been a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking regarding PowerCADD. I would like to remind everyone that I have been on the field for quite a while and have significantly more information than is available from the outside.
It would probably surprise most forum members just how many PowerCADD users balk at the nominal fee Engineered Software has always charged for updates. It would probably also surprise many members how many copies of PowerCADD 8 are still in use in the world by users who chose not to update. Users in this forum may be willing to invest, but that is not a general feeling among the PowerCADD population.
You are entitled to your opinion regarding "lead follow or get out of the way," which you have expressed several times. As far as what will happen with PowerCADD codebase, that has not been decided. Even though there is dwindling value in the UI portion of PowerCADD, the PowerCADD engine, which includes snapping, drawing, file IO, database management, etc, still has value. The engine has been modernized, performance tuned, built for 64-bit and M1, and functionally extended.
Part of the decision to end PowerCADD relates to the structural norms that a modern piece of software must adhere to. A major issue, and this has a significant bearing on WildTools, is that the freedoms to manage events and resources outside the control primary application is gone. All of PowerCADD's XTNL's manage resources as if they are the only thing running - of course PowerCADD does a lot of heavy lifting. I believe it is Alfred's notion is that it will take little time to convert WildTools to a new architecture. Unfortunately, the reality is that even WildTools would have a significant rewrite in order to go to a modern architecture.
Alfred, I encourage you to chime in on this. If you do, I would recommend for you to build WildTools with Xcode 13 using the current SDK, first. Though that won't reveal what architectural changes are be in store. That will give a notion of what API is not there that both PowerCADD 9 and WildTools 10.6 depend upon.
I am not inclined to publish a list of the PowerCADD License holders. Without the licensee's permission, I can't publish it anyway.