- Joined
- Dec 13, 2018
- Messages
- 384
@MikeHart In view of the hassle of fixing bugs and difficulty in further developing CX is there any point/advantage/requirement in continuing to offer both mojo and mojo2?
I have to say I know nothing about mojo; I've never used it (other than running the examples) and I don't seem to be lacking anything by using only mojo2. I realize people might have modules etc that rely on mojo and this backward compatibility might be the reason for keeping it. I've also seen arguments claiming mojo is faster than mojo2 and maybe mojo2's features aren't supported on all platforms? I don't know how things work under the hood but help says mojo provides basic App functionality so I'm guessing some merging of code would be required which could possibly be too much work in itself.
Just a thought...
I have to say I know nothing about mojo; I've never used it (other than running the examples) and I don't seem to be lacking anything by using only mojo2. I realize people might have modules etc that rely on mojo and this backward compatibility might be the reason for keeping it. I've also seen arguments claiming mojo is faster than mojo2 and maybe mojo2's features aren't supported on all platforms? I don't know how things work under the hood but help says mojo provides basic App functionality so I'm guessing some merging of code would be required which could possibly be too much work in itself.
Just a thought...