Still, I would expect HTML5 developers, by definition on the bleeding edge of tech, to not care about outdated/unsupported platforms.
Quite a few of us are only HTML 5 developers because we want to make games with C2 but have no other export options.
Why shouldn't the state of MMF be used as a baseline for comparison? You're well aware Ashley, or as he was known back then, Tigerworks, made construct due to dissatisfaction with clickteam's solutions. This is in part due to Ashley being a better developer, but the vast majority of it is due to learning from clickteam's mistakes!
You just described why the state of MMF shouldn't be used for comparison. Ashley has proven to consistently be a better developer with better design ideas. MMF has been stuck on legacy code and structure for ages and C2 was built properly without those problems. They're just too different to compare.
Hiring someone new doesn't change anything: that is one person that is sucking money from Scirra. That same person could be developing something else instead. It's as if you all think the editor is perfect already when it's far from it!
Someone's not 'sucking money from Scirra' if they are contributing to C2 and implementing features people want, even if you personally don't want them.
I don't think the editor is perfect, and I haven't gotten the impression that others arguing for native do either. I've stated repeatedly that if native exporters were to happen without hiring someone else, then they should be made later after the rest of the todo list is done.
Actually I can, and I just did. My personal grievances with Apple aside, the point is that you're always reliant own third parties
That... Doesn't make any sense. It sounds like you're calling iOS overpriced hype because we're reliant on apple, a third party, to develop iOS? We're even more reliant on microsoft for their development of windows. Not to mention...
And there's that "third parties are unreliable" issue again. Back when clickteam was developing the android exporter, they ran into some bug in the official Android SDK that prevented them from continuing. Chrome for windows 8 ARM still has many of it's capabilities artificially limited. JIT compilers for iOS are inaccessible, third parties cannot compile. Apple's software can, though, so it's not an engineering or technological problem. This goes to show that even when making native compilers, the list of possible problems with third parties is huge!
You're arguing FOR one of the main reasons to make native exporters - exporting HTML 5 only causes scirra to be much MORE reliant on third parties, and more third parties, rather than less!
I'm not saying making native exporters would be problem free, of course it wouldn't. However, as said, the jit compilers on iOS being inaccessible is one of the points that native would solve since we wouldn't have to use them at all.
Sticking to HTML5 has its cons, but at least there you know the issues will eventually be fixed, since you have giant players throwing their weight behind HTML5's success.
By making native, we rely on third parties far, far less than sticking with HTML 5, where every single device C2 exports to is more dependent on third parties than if it was native.
Native windows desktop: Microsoft.
HTML 5 desktop: Microsoft, google, intel. Possibly others, I'm not sure who else is involved (node.js, webkit, etc).
Native iOS: apple.
HTML 5 iOS: apple and ludei or intel.
It's like this everywhere, and not only does HTML 5 require support of a company's operating system, but it also requires that company to additionally properly support HTML 5 in a way that is sufficient for us making games (for example - sony. Ps4. Gaming machine. Yet C2 games run terribly on its browser).
Why do you think Ashley's solutions would be better than existing solutions?
I've already explained that in my previous posts. Another point I didn't mention is they did quite a good job on construct classic's runtime, and that was their first attempt. I imagine a 2.0 would be even better, same as how C2 is better than CC.
can you imagine the waste it would be if we had a native blackberry exporter? Symbian? Tizen? XNA? Ouya? Windows Mobile? Ubuntu touch? Palm OS? Bada?
It's pretty obvious which platforms are the successful ones by now. Native could be made for the major players, and HTML 5 would still exist for the rest. A native exporter would not have to be made until a platform had proven itself.
Keep in mind I'm talking about the IDE only, not the engine powering the games or the exporter. The most complicated parts are the event editor, the image editor, and the saving/loading of it all into XML. Sounds like, at most, a few months work to convert, though only Ashley can say with any certainty.
I'm doubtful the IDE could be easily decoupled from the exporter engine and such (and besides, what would be the point then if you had to bring it back from the web to desktop to export?), but because neither of us know the specifics of how C2 works behind the scenes it's pointless to speculate.