Devawriter Pro

[richmond62]

I have just released version 5.3.0 of my Devawriter Pro for digitisation of ancient Indic texts.
-

Screenshot 2024-08-27 at 14.02.47.jpg (213.67 KiB) Viewed 2036 times

-
It is available here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/jw3gmicv ... eub2y&dl=0

Which I am sure is mission critical for all you Sanskrit fans.

BUT, more importantly it is my first release using OXT Lite rather than LC 963.

I would be extremely grateful if anyone with access to a machine running Windows could download the Windows builds and "give them a whirl".

[tperry2x]

Thanks Richmond.
I'll try and give this a test on my Windows 10 box later.
I'll let you know how it goes. Is there anything in particular I should be checking for?

[richmond62]

Mainly that just doesn't get stuck.

[tperry2x]

All opens without a hitch (windows 10, latest build 23H2 something build)
If I was being absolutely picky, it would be that the zip file was made on a Mac, so you get these .DS_Store and _MACOSX files and folders.


But apart from that, seems to work - please see thumbnail gallery (which you can open in a new window for a larger more legible version).

[tperry2x]

Okay, so I've been testing compiling DW Pro with the Sonoma build option turned on. The results of that are at the bottom of this post, but first a bit of an unrelated DW compile test...

The following is all in OXT Lite v1.08 beta.

I first put a fairly large stack together. This has just got a lot of images in, on multiple cards. Simply to bring the stack size up to something fairly beefy (36MB).
I then tried to compile a standalone as a slim x64 MacOS build. (which works as expected - note the time taken)

test-1.jpg (228.84 KiB) Viewed 1702 times

So next, I tried it with the Sonoma patch in place. As you can see, it took roughly twice as long.

test-2.jpg (229 KiB) Viewed 1702 times

Now, bearing in mind that stack is only 36MB, I then thought I'd chuck something rather more substantial at it. (I did this the day after though, on a more up to date mac - to try and mirror as closely the results Richmond was seeing). This is where the DW Pro part comes in.

Building DW Pro for plain x64-bit MacOS (with no Sonoma patch) takes around 21 seconds. That's probably about right, based on the increased size of the stack. (The DW Pro stack I have here is approx 112MB in size).

Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 08.30.55.png (445.6 KiB) Viewed 1702 times

Turning the 'Sonoma' patch on, and trying to build.... gives this. At least I'm getting the same thing as Richmond, so it's consistent. It seemed like it had frozen or something, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited...

Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 08.33.04.png (715.85 KiB) Viewed 1702 times

It eventually did build, and just the Sonoma-patched MacOS x64 as asked, however it took a very similar time to what Richmond experienced (when he went shopping and left it doing it's thing). Curiously, I also get a popup about lipo needing to be installed with the xcode-command-line tools. I don't get this when building with the unpatched (non-sonoma) standalones. So that's interesting too.

Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 08.43.03.png (842.97 KiB) Viewed 1702 times

I wonder if it's purely that the codesigning isn't properly in place on the "sonoma-patched" standalone that the IDE uses as a template in it's runtime folder. That might be the reason why, I'll need to check that when I get a moment.

I'm not entirely sure if it's also something going on with the DW Pro stack (don't shoot me Richmond), please hear me out

I tested a large stack on the exact same machine, this is WITHOUT the sonoma patch, and a stack about 50MB in size.

Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 08.13.08.png (296.68 KiB) Viewed 1700 times

About 11 seconds. Okay, so using that logic, a stack double the size of around 100MB should take about ~22 seconds to build?

I tried the same 50MB stack WITH the sonoma patch:

Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 08.14.09.png (295.8 KiB) Viewed 1700 times

It took 15 seconds. So using that possible logic of double the stack size (akin to Richmond's DW Pro stack of 112MB), the time we should be seeing to build a Sonoma-patched DW Pro standalone should be about 44 seconds?

It's also interesting that I don't get a prompt about lipo in this case, so I wonder if it's something that's being detected in the 'search for required inclusions...' option? Something that might be used in the DW Pro stack, that is triggering this lipo error and the huge build times? There's certainly something the 'search for required inclusions...' part doesn't like when putting together the Sonoma-patched version.

[tperry2x]

As it's now lunchtime, I get to play with this a little more...

This time, same machine, same v1.08 beta, same DW Pro stack.
The only difference is I've turned OFF the "Search for required inclusions..."

Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 12.02.17.png (45.52 KiB) Viewed 1630 times

I then scroll through the inclusions list, and can see that the only things it looks like it needs is the ask and answer dialog:

Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 12.02.38.png (58.83 KiB) Viewed 1630 times

Keeping the 'Sonoma' option on, which it remembers...

Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 12.02.46.png (30.87 KiB) Viewed 1630 times

Before I build it, turning OFF the windows and Linux ones - as I was messing about with them as a test (just to make sure these also still work).

Ta-da! - This is more like it. A patched sonoma standalone of DW Pro in approx 20 seconds.

Screenshot 2024-08-30 at 12.04.50.png (197.03 KiB) Viewed 1630 times

Edit: I should also add, at no point did it complain about needing 'lipo' or the xcode-command-line dev tools. This only happens with the "Search for inclusions..." checkbox ticked.

So my question is now, why does the "Search for inclusions..." add 10 minutes to the build time, but only when I choose the 'Sonoma' option? I'll look into that, but this might mean it's a relatively simple fix to put right.

[richmond62]

Remember that my DW Pro stack is supersaturated with images working as buttons.

Any way, as you are obviously expecting an 'offended' remark re your comments re my DW Pro stack . . . let's be really bitchy and say this:

Use my DW Pro stack as the worst case scenario in all your tests: because if 'things' work with my monster, they should work almost everywhere else.

[tperry2x]

...as you are obviously expecting an 'offended' remark re your comments re my DW Pro stack...

Haha, - well not really. I know you've put a lot of work into it, so for me to come along and say "it's your stack at fault" isn't really helpful. Or, as it turns out, accurate - it's something to do with that searching for inclusions and my sonoma button. Perhaps something isn't getting set somewhere?

Like I say, I didn't make the original standalone builder, so it's understanding and unpicking a lot of it... just like the rest of the entire IDE.

[richmond62]

Getting "down and dirty" with standalone build timings:

#1 LC 963:

ONLY Mac 64-bit selected.

And your 'timer' .livecodescript thing installed.
-

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 11.43.11.png (500.54 KiB) Viewed 1049 times

-
Grinding slowly.

Finally got this:
-

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 11.49.44.png (114.4 KiB) Viewed 1045 times

-
And NO modal windows indicating the time taken. NBG

Having 'contaminated' my LC 963 install I am currently downloading a new DMG to try it 'as is' and time the build from the system clock.

[tperry2x]

Having 'contaminated' my LC 963 install I am currently downloading a new DMG to try it 'as is' and time the build from the system clock.

Uh, okay... ("contaminated" I like that - good one).
You aren't getting the timer, because you aren't getting the normal success dialog without errors. (That might be why you saw fit to label it "NBG" - that timer was only put in to help you debug the build times, from successfully built standalones with no errors).
If you pay attention to that screenshot, your standalone WAS actually created.

That screenshot implies you are trying to build an x32-bit application (or rather it's trying to split the fat binary into a x64 bit version only).... and you are on what version of MacOS? Looks like something after 10.15 judging by that window shape.

Starting with macOS Catalina, 32-bit apps are no longer compatible with macOS.

Perhaps it's why it's running into that error. Don't forget, the IDE of 9.6.3 (which the mac engine is still based on) wasn't specified by LC as being compatible with anything past MacOS 11 Big Sur. (and even that's shaky: systemversion *cough*)

yeah-this.png (42.01 KiB) Viewed 1017 times

It also shows that a required SSL library can't be found.

[tperry2x]

Testing in Catalina earlier:
This is a sonoma x64 build, with the 'search for required inclusions' turned on.

search-for-on.png (100.69 KiB) Viewed 1033 times

This is the same thing, but with the 'search for required inclusions' turned off.

search-for-off.png (62.46 KiB) Viewed 1033 times

At least it's repeatable, but I'm not seeing the crawling build times of 10+ minutes (but I can probably put that down to later MacOS being more sluggish).

[richmond62]

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 11.58.07.jpg (191.14 KiB) Viewed 1033 times

-

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 12.16.54.png (313.13 KiB) Viewed 1033 times

-
Certainly that, to me at least, is the 'normal' time for my DW Pro to build.

[richmond62]

Coffee and visiting sister (!) call.

Later, baby, later.

[tperry2x]

Certainly that, to me at least, is the 'normal' time for my DW Pro to build.

Well... yes, of course - because you are back in v1.07 of OXT Lite there in that screenshot, plus you aren't generating a sonoma standalone are you?

So of course - you'll get what you always got, because you are doing what you always did.

Even using my "Contaminated" *cough* file!
To be fair, I never tried it in LCC 9.6.3 because.... well, I'm frankly not interested in LCC 9.6.3 anymore. Things have moved on.

How about if you try building in v1.08 (with the sonoma button ticked), and the 'select inclusions for the standalone application' box ticked on the 'general' tab instead? - the results of that is what I want to see please, from your later MacOS machine.

[richmond62]

Yes, Sir, But . . .

After walk with sister and so on.

[tperry2x]

Yes, Sir, But ...

Please don't call me 'Sir'. Anything else you'd like to call me is fine, just not sir. I'm not a teacher, and I've not been knighted

[richmond62]

'Twas slightly tongue in cheek.

[richmond62]

1. Until version 5.3.0 of DW Pro I was 'happily' building MacOS standalones with an 'uncontaminated' LC 963 with NO complaints at all: so I am afraid I will blame THAT complaint on your 'timer' file:

2. I have just performed a build using LC 963 with my DW Pro version 5.2.4 stack (the last one before I worked on anything using OXT Lite) in 45 seconds.

3. Try a build from 5.3.0 with LC 963 takes about 5 minutes.

The ONLY code difference was one more card in the stack.

[tperry2x]

1. Until version 5.3.0 of DW Pro I was 'happily' building MacOS standalones with an 'uncontaminated' LC 963 with NO complaints at all: so I am afraid I will blame THAT complaint on your 'timer' file:
-

Have you actually looked at the script before you say that?

I have just performed a build using LC 963 with my DW Pro version 5.2.4 stack (the last one before I worked on anything using OXT Lite) in 45 seconds.
Try a build from 5.3.0 with LC 963 takes about 5 minutes.
The ONLY code difference was one more card in the stack.

And what was ON that last card?
Of course, I'm building with an old version of your Devawriter pro stack - the one you left in my dropbox, so what did you change after that?

[richmond62]

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 16.22.37.png (355.44 KiB) Viewed 907 times

-
NO inclusions selected in the LC 963 standalone builder, except the ASK and ANSWER dialogues.
-
Why the fudge has transferring the codebase to OXT Lite mean that, on opening the standalone settings in LC 963, I find that 'that' has been mucked around with?
-

Screenshot 2024-08-31 at 16.24.46.png (194.92 KiB) Viewed 902 times

-
Quite obviously standalone settings are NOT saved into a stack.

With that reset LC 963 built DW Pro 5.3.0 in 30 seconds!

So, now we know what the ethnic minority in the woodpile is (sorry: maybe we have to say "chromatically-challenged person" nowadays).