Development progress

General discussions about LaunchBar
Post Reply
Tinimini
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:17 am

Development progress

Post by Tinimini » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:20 am

Hi,
I've been using Launchbar in trial mode for some time now and seems that it is currently the best option as Quicksilver is pretty dead and Google Quick Search Box isn't quite there yet. I'm a bit hesitant to buy it though as there hasn't been a release in quite a long time. Is it still actively developed and is there for example an API coming out with which I could make my own plugins like with Google Quick Search Box. And I mean a bit more complicated plugin than the ones you can create with AppleScript.

sjk
Wizard
Wizard
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:46 pm
Location: Eugene
Contact:

Re: Development progress

Post by sjk » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:29 pm

Tinimini wrote:Is it still actively developed … [?]

Yes, e.g.: LaunchBar - Nightly Builds

FredSmith
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:12 am

Re: Development progress

Post by FredSmith » Fri Sep 10, 2010 7:32 pm

Mmmm.

I would say that the nightly builds are more akin to 'maintenance mode' than active development.

sjk
Wizard
Wizard
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:46 pm
Location: Eugene
Contact:

Re: Development progress

Post by sjk » Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:14 pm

Okay, I'm satisfied seeing it being actively maintained. :)

Seems likely (to me) Objective Development is still actively developing LB, just with a pace/style that minimizing risk of it being a victim of reckless creeping featurism since it's already a relatively mature product.

FredSmith
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:12 am

Re: Development progress

Post by FredSmith » Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:20 am

Oh, I agree with that. It already does pretty much everything that most people would want, but the poster was clearly asking about a specific feature, and I don't see anything like that coming in a nightly build.

I also don't think that an API qualifies as creeping featurism, and would certainly make the product a lot more useful. But there are tradeoffs as with most things. Quicksilver had an API which made it unbelievably useful, but at the same time made it very unstable. And if you look at the QSB boards, this extensibility seems to be causing similar problems there too. LB has always been more stable of the three. Could this be maintained with an API framework? Not sure.

sjk
Wizard
Wizard
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:46 pm
Location: Eugene
Contact:

Re: Development progress

Post by sjk » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:34 am

Beyond (in)stability issues extensibility can also make products more challenging to support, which a company developing/supporting shareware/commercial software (like LB) may have to consider differently than developers/supporters of "free" software (like QS). I think customers generally have higher expectations (even if they're not always reasonable) for support with software they've paid for. And some who haven't paid may feel entitled to support but it's easier to justify rejecting that attitude.

Developing what possibly won't be sufficiently supported can risk being as bad for business as not developing it at all.

FredSmith
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:12 am

Re: Development progress

Post by FredSmith » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:35 am

Very true, and Norbert's support of LSB tends to be a little more hands-off since there are a so many folk who are experts around here. Still many questions can go unanswered for weeks and many don't get answered at all, none of which gives the impression of an 'actively developed' application to an outside observer. I guess this hasn't been too much of a problem due to the lack of competition.

But I take your point. At the current level of support, adding an API would probably be a disaster, though that still doesn't mean having one wouldn't be useful.

sjk
Wizard
Wizard
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:46 pm
Location: Eugene
Contact:

Re: Development progress

Post by sjk » Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:41 pm

FredSmith wrote:But I take your point.

I'll trade it for yours. :)

Anyway … since Tinimini disappeared after starting this topic there's probably no sense in just us continuing back and forth with points we both agree on.

aristidesfl
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:54 am

Re: Development progress

Post by aristidesfl » Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:37 pm

It seems pretty stuck to me..

Even open source projects with a couple of developers move faster..

sjk
Wizard
Wizard
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:46 pm
Location: Eugene
Contact:

Re: Development progress

Post by sjk » Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:39 pm

aristidesfl wrote:Even open source projects with a couple of developers move faster..

And your point of that comparison is… ?

Different developers move at different paces for different reasons. What a revelation. :)

aristidesfl
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:54 am

Re: Development progress

Post by aristidesfl » Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:25 pm

For example Adium developed by a couple of developers.
But that is not the point.

The point is that users want to see features streamlined and things improved.

I think it would be really interesting to share those reasons rest of us..

FredSmith
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:12 am

Re: Development progress

Post by FredSmith » Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:49 pm

sjk wrote:
aristidesfl wrote:Even open source projects with a couple of developers move faster..

And your point of that comparison is… ?

Different developers move at different paces for different reasons. What a revelation. :)


Well, to call it 'pace', it really ought to move ...

I still tend to think of LB as being in 'maintenance mode': small incremental bug fixes every so often.

Post Reply