Cloud IDE

[woodb...@gmail.com]

If you have been reading this forum for any length
of time you will have read things like:

"On-line code generators aren't a viable solution -
who wants to be dependent upon a third-party that
may disappear tomorrow?"

Here's a link to a cloud-based IDE
https://codetasty.com/

And there are a number of reasons why the C++ Middleware
Writer (an on-line code generator) is better than codetasty:

1. The C++ Middleware Writer is free.
2. You don't have to upload all or even most of your project.

Some of the "experts" here don't like the way things are going:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live
in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of
their skin but by the content of their character."
Pastor Martin Luther King Jr.

While these "experts" could get a way with it they tried to
sway people from my work. They were successful for a while,
but that's starting to crumble now.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards

[Scott Lurndal]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>If you have been reading this forum for any length
>of time you will have read things like:
>
>"On-line code generators aren't a viable solution -
>who wants to be dependent upon a third-party that
>may disappear tomorrow?"
>
>Here's a link to a cloud-based IDE
>https://codetasty.com/
>

8.1 - CodeTasty cannot be held liable for system down time,
crashes or data loss. We cannot be held liable for any
predicated estimate of profits which a client would have
gained if CodeTasty site was functioning. Certain services
provided by CodeTasty are resold. CodeTasty holds no responsibility
for the use of our clients' accounts. Failure to comply with any
terms or conditions will result in the automatic deactivation of
the account in question. We reserve the right to remove any account,
without advance notice for any reason without restitution, as CodeTasty sees fit.

'nuf said.

[Öö Tiib]

Why you compare you product with some oddball IDE that no one cares
about?

What your code generator does that people need from serialization code?
For example:
* Lot of projects need to serialize data as XML or JSON (or some other
popular format) for compatibility.
* Bigger data (like video and sound) are too expensive to serialize
without compression.
* Potentially confidential information needs to be serialized with
encryption.
Such are some of the real needs that drive the choice of protocols and
libraries. What needs your code generator fulfills? If not any of
those three then there must be something else.

Why they need that code, free or otherwise, by uploading their code
anywhere or nowhere? These two are not benefits if they do not need
that code.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:31:58 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> 8.1 - CodeTasty cannot be held liable for system down time,
> crashes or data loss. We cannot be held liable for any
> predicated estimate of profits which a client would have
> gained if CodeTasty site was functioning.

That's to be expected, especially for free services. If
the service isn't reliable the company behind it will suffer
for it.


Brian
http://webEbenezer.net

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:55:48 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> Why you compare you product with some oddball IDE that no one cares
> about?
>
> What your code generator does that people need from serialization code?
> For example:
> * Lot of projects need to serialize data as XML or JSON (or some other
> popular format) for compatibility.

I'm open to adding support for JSON, but haven't worked on
that yet.

> * Bigger data (like video and sound) are too expensive to serialize
> without compression.

There's support for compression via code from quicklz.com.

> * Potentially confidential information needs to be serialized with
> encryption.

I don't have support for this yet, but agree it's important.

> Such are some of the real needs that drive the choice of protocols and
> libraries. What needs your code generator fulfills? If not any of
> those three then there must be something else.

It automates the creation of serialization functions.

The cloud-ness of it means:
1. The amount of code that you have to download/build/
maintain is minimized. So using multiple versions of
the code generator is easier than installing multiple
versions of a library/compiler. Compiler Explorer is
an example of this.

2. We are able to get a better idea of what to work on
than compiler vendors. Compiler vendors have to decide
whether to support things in the standard or things their
users are asking for. Maybe they make good decisions
in that area, but sometimes they don't. Because we have
an on-line tool, we have an easier time deciding what to
work on next.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[jacobnavia]

Le 30/07/2018 à 21:50, woodb...@gmail.com a écrit :
> Here's a link to a cloud-based IDE
> https://codetasty.com/

I followed that link, and I thought that I arrived to some tutorial or
similar. So I clicked into "Get started"

A window appears that asks for my email. In general I do not like to put
my email anywhere and give people more opportunities to send me spam, so
I tried to close that, but it is impossible. The programmer didn't put a
close button or something to get out of that window.

Of course I can close it with closing the tab in the navigator, what I
did. Then reloaded the page and started looking at something that could
tell me what this software does...

I scrolled down and read:

<quote>
Real-time language tools
that make you smarter
<end quote>

Yeah smarter, of course I need that tool, dumb as I am...

Then:

<quote>
Our IDE helps you write readable and clean code the smarter way - in
real time.
<end quote>

Sure, vi does that too. I write code in vi in real time, and after I
type something, I see immediately what I type. In real time. Gone are
the old days when I waited in some editor, for the characters that I
type to appear in the screen. All editors are real time now.

This one has PHP code completion, a feature the author is very proud of.
Animations in the screen show you typing and code completion at work.

This "IDE" is then actually a PHP editor with code completion.

There is no word of a debugger, advanced syntactic search possibilities
whatever. No trace of an IDE.

It can handle, as it says, files of hundred thousand lines or even more.
Great.

Vim does that too.

Or emacs, or visual studio or whatever.

<quote>
What makes us top-notch
<end quote>

Yeah, I wonder... WHAT?

<quote>
No Setup
<end quote>

No setup?

How can I tell it to display tabs at 6 positions? I would like to know.
And please, not 4, not 8, but 6. OK?

I took the link because you cited King. That was disconcerting enough to
be worth a click.

But using M. L. King to sell a PHP editor?

Wait a minute man. Have more respect for black people ok?

Do not USE them in your marketing stuff.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 5:05:38 PM UTC-5, jacobnavia wrote:
>
> I followed that link, and I thought that I arrived to some tutorial or
> similar. So I clicked into "Get started"
>
> A window appears that asks for my email. In general I do not like to put
> my email anywhere and give people more opportunities to send me spam, so
> I tried to close that, but it is impossible. The programmer didn't put a
> close button or something to get out of that window.

Clicking on the "back" button works.

>
> Of course I can close it with closing the tab in the navigator, what I
> did. Then reloaded the page and started looking at something that could
> tell me what this software does...
>
> I scrolled down and read:
>
> <quote>
> Real-time language tools
> that make you smarter
> <end quote>
>
> Yeah smarter, of course I need that tool, dumb as I am...
>
> Then:
>
> <quote>
> Our IDE helps you write readable and clean code the smarter way - in
> real time.
> <end quote>
>
> Sure, vi does that too. I write code in vi in real time, and after I
> type something, I see immediately what I type. In real time. Gone are
> the old days when I waited in some editor, for the characters that I
> type to appear in the screen. All editors are real time now.
>
> This one has PHP code completion, a feature the author is very proud of.
> Animations in the screen show you typing and code completion at work.
>
> This "IDE" is then actually a PHP editor with code completion.

I agree that vim is good enough for most things, but they
may be on to something.

[ snip ]

>
> I took the link because you cited King. That was disconcerting enough to
> be worth a click.
>
> But using M. L. King to sell a PHP editor?

Not using him to sell anything. I appreciate his faith
and his work to create a colorblind society.

[David Brown]

On 30/07/18 21:50, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you have been reading this forum for any length
> of time you will have read things like:
>
> "On-line code generators aren't a viable solution -
> who wants to be dependent upon a third-party that
> may disappear tomorrow?"

That is just one of a dozen reasons why they are mostly irrelevant (and
mostly disliked by people who have to use them).

>
> Here's a link to a cloud-based IDE
> https://codetasty.com/
>
> And there are a number of reasons why the C++ Middleware
> Writer (an on-line code generator) is better than codetasty:

How can you be comparing your obscure and limited "apple" to their
obscure and limited "orange", and concluding that yours is "better"? As
far as I understand it, you have made a code generator. They have made
an IDE. The only thing they have in common is that you use a browser to
work it.

>
> 1. The C++ Middleware Writer is free.
> 2. You don't have to upload all or even most of your project.
>
> Some of the "experts" here don't like the way things are going:

None of the experts (or "experts" either) here are bothered in the
slightest, because this is /not/ the way anything is going. Blind,
manic optimism and repeated assertions is not going to make "online code
generation" into anything significant outside very niche areas.

When ARM brought out its "mbed" system, it was originally using an
online IDE and compilers on their servers. People thought it was a
great idea for spending a few hours playing around and testing out the
system without installing massive editors, compiler suites, libraries,
etc. But it was also immediately clear that no one would use it for
anything serious until they could do everything entirely on their own
machines - something that ARM quickly supported.

> "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live
> in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of
> their skin but by the content of their character."
> Pastor Martin Luther King Jr.

How has this /anything/ to do with /your/ dream that online code
generation will take over the world - or at least that /someone/ will
make use of your online code generator? Your delusions of grandeur
apparently know no bounds.

>
> While these "experts" could get a way with it they tried to
> sway people from my work. They were successful for a while,
> but that's starting to crumble now.
>

At the risk of upsetting your delicate sensibilities, that is complete
bollocks.

[jacobnavia]

Le 31/07/2018 à 03:19, woodb...@gmail.com a écrit :
>
> [ snip ]

Yes, you snipped this:

<I wrote >

No setup?

How can I tell it to display tabs at 6 positions? I would like to know.
And please, not 4, not 8, but 6. OK?

<end quote>

Can you tell me then, how do I do that in your editor???

No setup you say. OK

Just tell me how do I do it.

Thanks

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 31 July 2018 00:51:55 UTC+3, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 3:55:48 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >
> > Why you compare you product with some oddball IDE that no one cares
> > about?
> >
> > What your code generator does that people need from serialization code?
> > For example:
> > * Lot of projects need to serialize data as XML or JSON (or some other
> > popular format) for compatibility.
>
> I'm open to adding support for JSON, but haven't worked on
> that yet.

It was just an example of real need that is behind what people choose.
Not the opinion of "experts" whom you accuse but actual necessity.

> > * Bigger data (like video and sound) are too expensive to serialize
> > without compression.
>
> There's support for compression via code from quicklz.com.

It had compression rates like 3:1 or 2:1 for plain text. Video
streams are massive so usually less than 50:1 is insufficient.

> > * Potentially confidential information needs to be serialized with
> > encryption.
>
> I don't have support for this yet, but agree it's important.

Again it is just an example that can be actual necessity. Even for
rather mundane reason like for to reduce ways for some online
game host to cheat and so to spoil it for his playmates.

> > Such are some of the real needs that drive the choice of protocols and
> > libraries. What needs your code generator fulfills? If not any of
> > those three then there must be something else.
>
> It automates the creation of serialization functions.

That might be indeed convenience that some need but also it is quite
tricky to automate. Data is rarely free of complications so it usually
takes some indication by developer to make the tools or libraries to
realize how and what of it to serialize.
Look at your list http://webebenezer.net/supportedTypes.html
It does only mention std::unique_ptr and boost::scoped_ptr. What
does it do with raw pointers? Some may need deep restoration of raw
pointers. Some may need proper restoration of pointers to non-owned
data. What it does or does not do is unclear and are you really
expecting people to figure it out by trying?

> The cloud-ness of it means:
> 1. The amount of code that you have to download/build/
> maintain is minimized. So using multiple versions of
> the code generator is easier than installing multiple
> versions of a library/compiler. Compiler Explorer is
> an example of this.

Are you avoiding my question about actual needs and benefits with such
random claims? People use things like Compiler Explorer to try out or
to demonstrate to others some special case about particular compiler
on toy examples. That has nothing to do with your product.

> 2. We are able to get a better idea of what to work on
> than compiler vendors. Compiler vendors have to decide
> whether to support things in the standard or things their
> users are asking for. Maybe they make good decisions
> in that area, but sometimes they don't. Because we have
> an on-line tool, we have an easier time deciding what to
> work on next.

Huh? What need that resolves? The compiler vendors are again doing
something else entirely in other league. Major ones have
money, patents, development teams and knowledge of likes of Microsoft,
Oracle, Apple, Google, Intel, and so on at their disposal. Even if
they are wrong at rate 10:1 then they will still add hundred things
that no one needs plus 10 things that lot of people need while you
ponder if to add support to JSON or what.

The question was: what are the needs that your product deals with
most outstandingly? Anyone who tries to market something must be is most
happy about that question. If you haven't thought that thru then you
should start from there I guess and not from accusing "experts" here
in your small user base.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 2:43:41 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 30/07/18 21:50, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you have been reading this forum for any length
> > of time you will have read things like:
> >
> > "On-line code generators aren't a viable solution -
> > who wants to be dependent upon a third-party that
> > may disappear tomorrow?"
>
> That is just one of a dozen reasons why they are mostly irrelevant (and
> mostly disliked by people who have to use them).
>
> >
> > Here's a link to a cloud-based IDE
> > https://codetasty.com/
> >
> > And there are a number of reasons why the C++ Middleware
> > Writer (an on-line code generator) is better than codetasty:
>
> How can you be comparing your obscure and limited "apple" to their
> obscure and limited "orange", and concluding that yours is "better"? As
> far as I understand it, you have made a code generator. They have made
> an IDE. The only thing they have in common is that you use a browser to
> work it.

A browser is not what we have in common. We both have on-line
services related to software development.

The C++ Middleware Writer may be obscure to some, but I
invite others to "Come, let us tell of the L-RD's greatness;
let us exalt His Name together." Psalms 34:3
The faithful, including MLK Jr., are persecuted for
their faith, but G-d still provides for us. The pilgrims
were a small group that left Europe for the new world.
Today the new world is things like on-line services.
America was the bright future back in the 17th and 18th
centuries. Cloud services are the future today. (Don't
blame me, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, George W. or
Obama. I've been voting for the Constitution Party.)

[David Brown]

On 01/08/18 22:21, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 2:43:41 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> On 30/07/18 21:50, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> If you have been reading this forum for any length
>>> of time you will have read things like:
>>>
>>> "On-line code generators aren't a viable solution -
>>> who wants to be dependent upon a third-party that
>>> may disappear tomorrow?"
>>
>> That is just one of a dozen reasons why they are mostly irrelevant (and
>> mostly disliked by people who have to use them).
>>
>>>
>>> Here's a link to a cloud-based IDE
>>> https://codetasty.com/
>>>
>>> And there are a number of reasons why the C++ Middleware
>>> Writer (an on-line code generator) is better than codetasty:
>>
>> How can you be comparing your obscure and limited "apple" to their
>> obscure and limited "orange", and concluding that yours is "better"? As
>> far as I understand it, you have made a code generator. They have made
>> an IDE. The only thing they have in common is that you use a browser to
>> work it.
>
> A browser is not what we have in common. We both have on-line
> services related to software development.
>
> The C++ Middleware Writer may be obscure to some, but I
> invite others to "Come, let us tell of the L-RD's greatness;
> let us exalt His Name together." Psalms 34:3

And that, I believe, is one of the key reasons why your software is
obscure. There is nothing wrong with writing an online code generator,
if that's what you think people will want. There is nothing wrong with
having a religious faith. There /is/ something wrong with mixing the
two, and trying to force people to follow, or at least listen to, your
personal brand of religion if they want to use your software. It's as
daft as being a fan of Star Wars and refusing to let people test your
software before buying it on the basis that "There is no try. There is
only do, or do not do."

No one has anything against you having your faith - it is how you try to
shove it down people's throats that is the problem.

> The faithful, including MLK Jr., are persecuted for
> their faith, but G-d still provides for us.

Martin Luther King was not persecuted for his faith - he was shot
because he was disrupting the status quo for the poor white people who
wanted to treat blacks as slaves so that they would not be at the bottom
of the heap. His faith had precious little to do with his message.

And (hopefully) for the last time, you are /not/ Martin Luther King,
Noah, God's appointed leader of C++, or anything else special. You are
just a struggling programmer with an obsessive idea about how you think
people want to get their code. Once you realise that your obsession
about online code generation is shared by only a tiny fraction of
programmers, and start thinking about how you could make your system
into downloadable software or, alternatively, a proper consulting
business, maybe your software could be useful and popular.

> The pilgrims
> were a small group that left Europe for the new world.

The pilgrims didn't leave England due to religious persecution. They
left because they wanted to be able to persecute everyone else that
didn't follow their particular brand of Christianity. They left because
there was relative freedom of religion in England at the time, and they
didn't like it.

> Today the new world is things like on-line services.
> America was the bright future back in the 17th and 18th
> centuries. Cloud services are the future today. (Don't
> blame me, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, George W. or
> Obama. I've been voting for the Constitution Party.)
>

Online and cloud services certainly have their uses and their
advantages. That does not mean that they are the best choice for
everything.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

People don't have to agree with my beliefs in order to use
the software. That would be your attempt to sway others
from using it.

> It's as
> daft as being a fan of Star Wars and refusing to let people test your
> software before buying it on the basis that "There is no try. There is
> only do, or do not do."

It's free software. No need to buy anything.

>
> No one has anything against you having your faith - it is how you try to
> shove it down people's throats that is the problem.
>
> > The faithful, including MLK Jr., are persecuted for
> > their faith, but G-d still provides for us.
>
> Martin Luther King was not persecuted for his faith - he was shot
> because he was disrupting the status quo for the poor white people who
> wanted to treat blacks as slaves so that they would not be at the bottom
> of the heap. His faith had precious little to do with his message.

"Free at last, free at last. Thank G-d almighty we are free
at last." MLK Jr.

>
> And (hopefully) for the last time, you are /not/ Martin Luther King,
> Noah, God's appointed leader of C++, or anything else special.

I claim to be part of the royal priesthood. See First Peter 2:9.
And everyone is special because they have been made in G-d's image.

> You are
> just a struggling programmer with an obsessive idea about how you think
> people want to get their code.

More like how I can make a living in increasingly
lawless times -- times similar to Noah.

> Once you realise that your obsession
> about online code generation is shared by only a tiny fraction of
> programmers, and start thinking about how you could make your system
> into downloadable software

You mean not an on-line service?

"Exponential growth in cloud services solutions"
https://www.networkworld.com/article/3233134/cloud-computing/5-cloud-computing-trends-to-prepare-for-in-2018.html

> or, alternatively, a proper consulting
> business, maybe your software could be useful and popular.
>
> > The pilgrims
> > were a small group that left Europe for the new world.
>
> The pilgrims didn't leave England due to religious persecution. They
> left because they wanted to be able to persecute everyone else that
> didn't follow their particular brand of Christianity. They left because
> there was relative freedom of religion in England at the time, and they
> didn't like it.

Twisted views in my opinion. I guess Abe Lincoln was wrong
to celebrate Thanksgiving in your view.

>
> > Today the new world is things like on-line services.
> > America was the bright future back in the 17th and 18th
> > centuries. Cloud services are the future today. (Don't
> > blame me, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, George W. or
> > Obama. I've been voting for the Constitution Party.)
> >
>
> Online and cloud services certainly have their uses and their
> advantages. That does not mean that they are the best choice for
> everything.

Quality software is no accident. Those who deliver it deserve
to be rewarded. The cloud best protects investors and that's
one of the reasons it's growing.

[David Brown]

I am not interested in swaying others from using it. I am interested in
helping /you/ realise why others are not interested in using your software.

I have no personal interest in your software. No matter how it was
packaged, no matter the distribution, licencing, no matter who makes it
and what their philosophies are - it is simply not software that holds
the slightest use for the kind of programming I do.

But I have seen you here, year after year, /begging/ people to use a
tool that you are giving free. You are even offering to pay people, and
work for them for free, as long as they are willing to use your free
software. Something is clearly very wrong with your model here. I am
not trying to stop people from using your software - I am trying to help
you understand some of the reasons why they have not started.

>> It's as
>> daft as being a fan of Star Wars and refusing to let people test your
>> software before buying it on the basis that "There is no try. There is
>> only do, or do not do."
>
> It's free software. No need to buy anything.

Whoosh! That's the sound of my point flying over your head.

>
>>
>> No one has anything against you having your faith - it is how you try to
>> shove it down people's throats that is the problem.
>>
>>> The faithful, including MLK Jr., are persecuted for
>>> their faith, but G-d still provides for us.
>>
>> Martin Luther King was not persecuted for his faith - he was shot
>> because he was disrupting the status quo for the poor white people who
>> wanted to treat blacks as slaves so that they would not be at the bottom
>> of the heap. His faith had precious little to do with his message.
>
> "Free at last, free at last. Thank G-d almighty we are free
> at last." MLK Jr.

He was a church minister - of course he was religious, and said things
like that. But his message (at least his main one) was about trying to
end prejudice, racism, and mistreatment - these had /nothing/ to do with
his faith or anyone else's. As a strongly religious person, he would
have used his faith for strength, and as a weapon in the fight - but it
was not the root of his message or struggle. He did not say "people are
equal whether they are black or white, because God said so" - he said
"people are equal whether they are black or white".

>
>>
>> And (hopefully) for the last time, you are /not/ Martin Luther King,
>> Noah, God's appointed leader of C++, or anything else special.
>
> I claim to be part of the royal priesthood. See First Peter 2:9.

And that is why people laugh at you.

You are not persecuted for your faith, or laughed at for being a
Christian. You are laughed at when you say things like that.

> And everyone is special because they have been made in G-d's image.

If everyone is special, no one is special. Look up the meaning of the
word "special". You can be happy that you are made in your god's image,
if that's what you believe - that's fine. But it does not make you
special if it applies to everyone else.

>
>
>> You are
>> just a struggling programmer with an obsessive idea about how you think
>> people want to get their code.
>
> More like how I can make a living in increasingly
> lawless times -- times similar to Noah.

Despite the impression you might get, we are /not/ living in
increasingly lawless times, but in increasingly civilised times. And
since we know less about Noah and his "times" than we do about Bilbo
Baggins, it is hard to compare. But /if/ there is the slightest hint of
historical accuracy in that part of the OT, /you/ are not Noah and we
are not living in the ancient Middle East.

As for how you can make a living - listen to suggestions you get from
people like me, and stop claiming you are the Second Coming. If you
don't sound like a lunatic, you'll have a better chance of getting
customers.

>
>> Once you realise that your obsession
>> about online code generation is shared by only a tiny fraction of
>> programmers, and start thinking about how you could make your system
>> into downloadable software
>
> You mean not an on-line service?

Yes.

>
> "Exponential growth in cloud services solutions"
> https://www.networkworld.com/article/3233134/cloud-computing/5-cloud-computing-trends-to-prepare-for-in-2018.html

You are /not/ involved in cloud services. That is a totally different
concept from what you are making. Can you really not understand that?
You can't just say "I'm making something that runs on the other end of a
network. Lots of others are successful running things on the other end
of networks. Therefore I will be successful if I wait long enough."

>
>> or, alternatively, a proper consulting
>> business, maybe your software could be useful and popular.
>>
>>> The pilgrims
>>> were a small group that left Europe for the new world.
>>
>> The pilgrims didn't leave England due to religious persecution. They
>> left because they wanted to be able to persecute everyone else that
>> didn't follow their particular brand of Christianity. They left because
>> there was relative freedom of religion in England at the time, and they
>> didn't like it.
>
> Twisted views in my opinion.

Exaggerated, perhaps - but not twisted. Read some history that is not
written as US propaganda. (I don't mean that to sound anti-american.
Every person, and every country, writes their histories to emphasise
their own values, or how great they are, or how right they were to make
the decisions they made in the past.)

> I guess Abe Lincoln was wrong
> to celebrate Thanksgiving in your view.

Nothing wrong with a good party - there is no need for historical
accuracy. I enjoy Christmas with its mixtures of traditions from all
sorts of cultures and lack of historical accuracy.

>
>>
>>> Today the new world is things like on-line services.
>>> America was the bright future back in the 17th and 18th
>>> centuries. Cloud services are the future today. (Don't
>>> blame me, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton, George W. or
>>> Obama. I've been voting for the Constitution Party.)
>>>
>>
>> Online and cloud services certainly have their uses and their
>> advantages. That does not mean that they are the best choice for
>> everything.
>
> Quality software is no accident.

True.

> Those who deliver it deserve to be rewarded.

Agreed.

> The cloud best protects investors and that's
> one of the reasons it's growing.
>

Nonsense.

And "quality software" and "cloud" are totally unrelated concepts.
There is nothing about the "cloud" that implies, guarantees, or promotes
"quality" or lack thereof.

And - again - there is nothing about your software that is "cloud".