🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi all,
 
> The proposed price tag (10K or higher) would surely keep us from using
Bedrock unless ..
 
As a *small* developer this price (if the information is right) is too high. I
think even for in-house developers it will allmost impossible to justify it.
Until now we got MacApp on ETO for a reasonable price. I hope that Bedrock will
be distrubuted in the same way (sources included) and the conversion from
MacApp will be minimum or procedural (Have we forgot the conversion from MacApp
2.0?)
 
> MacApp has been an excellent framework
 
Indeed MacApp is very good, in spite of
    - some bugs should be fixed, i never fix a long list of bugs (*they* call
it APARS and PTF's) in advance. If i have a problem i look to the *Bug list*
and fix it. But i expect regularly updatings, and this is missing on the ETO.
Why is Apple not fixing the bugs and give us an updated version on the next ETO
(MacApp 3.0.2, MacApp 3.0.3, ..., MacApp 3.1.0, ...) ?????
    - missing new features: OSL, QuickTime, ...
    - missing incremental build
    - missing the DLL's feature
 
> Cross-platform development is not that important to us ...
> We need a framework that keeps pace with the latest Macintosh developments
and fully supports them as they are released
 
For myself, cross-platform is NOT important (perhaps (!) i miss some
opportunities)
    - i maked some time ago a choice: (if i go in detail it will be a 32K link)
        - OS2, even 2.0, is still BAD!
        - Windows 3.1 is good, but there is still *a DOS*, i mean the 'c\'
        - Mac interface is from the beginning very good and consistent.
    - it is allmost impossible to learn all the new features on all OS's.
 
Thus my strategy is to writing a *framework* above MacApp, and so i'm prepared
for *small* conversions. So, if Bedrock will be too expensive, i will continue
with MacApp 3.0.1
 
It is 11:55: we need formal info ... (specially from Apple)
 
Regards
Willy