I'm loosing my first customers ...

Scriptcase 7 Discussion
#1

Hello,

I’m now working with scriptcase for some years.
But more and more I hear that my customers are not happy with the old fashioned looking layout of this software.

I think there are two different point of views.

a) I work in a bureau. I don’t need amazing styles and a lot of pictures… I have to work on tables … the software
must be fast and easy to use … For this SC ist just the best software

b) I have to represent my office in the web and my customers are working on my internet platform.
SC has few options to create good looking web pages !! You can’t sell anything in the web if your
presentation on web is not looking good.

I now lost my first customers who changed to another company because that what I could offer with SC was
not enough !!

In my opinion SC must work hard to improve the appearence of the application.
It’s really looking like a software 5 years ago … this is not the way pages are presented on web today !!
I have nearly no possibilities to make the web page more interesting.

If I loose again customers… SC will loose me …

Best regard
Uwe Pfeiffer

#2

But whats the problem exactly? You can change header & footer configuration, control over CSS, buttons and so on. to give it the look you want.

About b) I’m not totally agree. SC is a tool to create Web Applications, not websites. And I don’t understand exactly where SC don’t looks good, or what in SC you can’t change to look it better.

#3

Helo,

for example : have a look at www.verivox.de a web application.
I wonder how to create such an application with SC…
the screen is divided into several parts with different contents … this way a web site should look.

The static grids and forms have no the possibility to do so.

Best regards
Uwe

#4

Well, the site you link I don’t see it as a Web app, but a website with some web apps integrated.

In SC you don’t have just grids and forms,you have container and blank Apps too.

Said that, for a site like this, combination of technologies is needed IMHO. You can construct this front page with blank apps, but a lot of custom code is needed, custom code you can save using a CMS. I would use a CMS like Joomla for frontend and SC for backend. If you want to show on frontend SC apps, you can with iframes. All CMS has this option.

The “Die g?ngstigsten Tarife” block can be Developed otherwise on SC, but obviously you need some css skills.

Conclusi?n for me is. As I mentioned, SC is for web applications, not for content management. Its possible to develop a web like this just with SC? Yes. Its worth? No. Alternatives? Combinaci?n of CMS for frontend and SC for data management in backend and some apps customized to be showed in frontend if needed. What CMS to use? IT depends on your need and taste. Aducom likes e107, I work with Joomla and Drupal.

Just my 2 cents.

#5

[QUOTE=Giu;24163]Well, the site you link I don’t see it as a Web app, but a website with some web apps integrated.

In SC you don’t have just grids and forms,you have container and blank Apps too.

Said that, for a site like this, combination of technologies is needed IMHO. You can construct this front page with blank apps, but a lot of custom code is needed, custom code you can save using a CMS. I would use a CMS like Joomla for frontend and SC for backend. If you want to show on frontend SC apps, you can with iframes. All CMS has this option.

The “Die g?ngstigsten Tarife” block can be Developed otherwise on SC, but obviously you need some css skills.

Conclusi?n for me is. As I mentioned, SC is for web applications, not for content management. Its possible to develop a web like this just with SC? Yes. Its worth? No. Alternatives? Combinaci?n of CMS for frontend and SC for data management in backend and some apps customized to be showed in frontend if needed. What CMS to use? IT depends on your need and taste. Aducom likes e107, I work with Joomla and Drupal.

Just my 2 cents.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I work with WP too :wink: But I must agree on this as I have been posting my (similar) opinion here before. We too are working with SC for a couple of years now and I see the opposite movement. Use the tools where they are good at. If you only have a hammer then every screw will become a nail we say.

#6

Hello
I will try with jscriptcase… maybe that’s my solution…

Thanks
Uwe

#7

Pfeiffer,

I have the same thoughts about the overall look and feel. I’m impressed with the out-of-the-box functionality of SC but I’m equally unimpressed with the current layouts. I am currently evaluating SC but the look and feel is really hold me back. Something that is bugging me is why SC does not have a basic structure or layout for a full fledged application. SC calls what I would consider modules (grid, chart, form, etc…) applications and that just makes things more confusing. I don’t consider a form or grid by itself an application. What I consider an application is the collection of grids, forms, charts all nicely integrated into a basic layout. That is what seems to be missing from SC.

As a potential customer, I think SC should consider adding a layout module that would allow all of the independent ‘applicatons’ to be integrated into. For example, it makes more sense to create all of my grids and forms and then put them inside a basic layout that would have a horizontal menu above and tabs below. Perhaps SC can do that now but if so please do show me how. I’ve watched most of your videos (which are very nice) but none that show me how to integrate all of my ‘applications’. I’m stuck here and if I cant come up with something that makes me happy then I will probably stop considering SC.

#8

[QUOTE=joselvelez;24297]Pfeiffer,

I have the same thoughts about the overall look and feel. I’m impressed with the out-of-the-box functionality of SC but I’m equally unimpressed with the current layouts. I am currently evaluating SC but the look and feel is really hold me back. Something that is bugging me is why SC does not have a basic structure or layout for a full fledged application. SC calls what I would consider modules (grid, chart, form, etc…) applications and that just makes things more confusing. I don’t consider a form or grid by itself an application. What I consider an application is the collection of grids, forms, charts all nicely integrated into a basic layout. That is what seems to be missing from SC.

As a potential customer, I think SC should consider adding a layout module that would allow all of the independent ‘applicatons’ to be integrated into. For example, it makes more sense to create all of my grids and forms and then put them inside a basic layout that would have a horizontal menu above and tabs below. Perhaps SC can do that now but if so please do show me how. I’ve watched most of your videos (which are very nice) but none that show me how to integrate all of my ‘applications’. I’m stuck here and if I cant come up with something that makes me happy then I will probably stop considering SC.[/QUOTE]

What you call an application, is called a project in Scriptcase terms. I had to get used to that too as I agree on your definition. To SC every php module is an application. What’s in a name :wink:

Regarding your second question, there are a lot of movies to watch to see how things are done. On our own site you can find some more and it’s more about creating an application (project). But SC is bound to certain limitations. If you look at

http://www.aducomportal.nl/p1.png or http://www.aducomportal.nl/p2.png you see samples of an application we build which does look good (in our eyes) although it’s a matter of taste. But if you think you can create fully aware website with all the whisles and bells then you cannot realize that with Scriptcase and I doubt if there’s a generating tool on the market that can… That’s why we regularly use a cms to host the application in. In general you should use tools at what they are good at. If you want full control you need to go back to the bone. Pure html/css and/or php

#9

Albert,

Thanks for the links to additional videos. I’ll will check those out.

Jose

#10

[SIZE=14px]In 2014[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14px]Today (jan 2017) I am working on SC 8 and the things are still TRUE.[/SIZE]

​
[SIZE=14px]Problem exactly is:[/SIZE] [LIST=1]

  • The main idea of SC is awesome
  • The way how to do it is really really old fashion
  • At the first glance it look pretty well BUT
  • [B]Layout dividing into <div> | <section> bloks are totally missing[/B]
  • [B]Instead table in table layout is used every where[/B]
  • [B]Too much inline style, ideally there should by no inline style[/B]
  • Table is using JS instead 'CSS :hower' to change the line where the cursor is
  • [B]The view is differ very differ in browsers, something is better in FF something in Chrome ... really dizaster, post editing is needed[/B]
  • [B]Try to inspect the generated code - totally mash, no coding standard, old fashion class usage[/B]
  • I inspect a little bit the generate code there is a lot of basic mistakes
  • So therefore I would argue that the code is very low quality
  • I guess that the code creator is have similar code quality
  • [B]Low quality code explains the mysterious behavior of SC and unrepeatable errors[/B]
  • Some of the third party library is really old
  • This is not sufficient for today market and for customer demand
  • At first I was impressed but to day I will not recommend the SC
  • However the there is no similar alternative in the market to complexity [/LIST] [B]Example of the third party library age:[/B] > [B]ADODB[/B]_vers = 'v4.991 16 Oct [B]2008[/B] JQ UI 1.10.4 Released on January 17, 2014 https://jqueryui.com/changelog/ [B]COOLjsTree[/B], Version: 2.8.7a, Last Modify: 4 Feb [B]2007[/B] [B]COOLjsMenu[/B], Version: 2.9.4g, Last Modify: 11 Apr [B]2007[/B] [B]PHP Layers Menu[/B] 3.2.0-rc (Aug 17, [B]2004[/B])
    • #11

    I think it would be best to start new threads. Besides, yes most of the points has been addressed in a lot of posts in the passing years. SC has it’s own path, and sometimes I fail to see why they taking that.

    #12

    Thank you Giu and Aducom for your response.

    I understand that the SC is primary not websites. But I thing that is it possible to do everything with SC as Giu showed by touching post app.

    The problem is that it is only start time for me with SC. I have been working with SC only for one month and I am very disappointed with the quality of SC.
    For example this ridiculous bug: http://www.scriptcase.net/forum/foru…4884#post74884

    About of the inheritance of old code is obvious but it does not have anything with the backward compatibility (BC). SC has no real BC because the old code must be converted. Dependencies on the SC macros is not a BC problem.

    On the other hand the final code is so senstive and in my opinion every new version will make a big problems and will do a lot of BC brakes.

    Why ?

    • SC has no private functions and properties.
    • SC do not use __construct, __destructs and other magic functions.
    • SC has a lot dependencies on the global scope.
    • Every app has an own life and a lot of things is not compatible between them.

    I am able to do everything in SC (even website) and I am using the before mentioned non standard code freedom. But it is so hard.
    It is enough to change something in the code generator and the app will not work as I expect.

    Because lot of things is still actual and it is really annoying. And as I see that the problems I have with SC the guys had before a couple of years and it is a very sad thing.
    I am very happy that I do not bought the payd support and the payd course. I was thinking about it but today I have a clear attitude in this way. For me after one month with working in SC is everything clear and there is nothing to learn or reach with NetMake.

    [SIZE=16px]I am looking forward to SC9 and I have a strong belief that it will be much more stable a better than SC8.[/SIZE]