They need to have some sort of web demo. FWIW, the fact that they don't and everything is in Beta makes me very suspicious. Desktop only apps are dead except for real niche applications.

>Hi Hank,
>
>>So let me know what you mean, and I'll let you know my experience in the betas (in which the product is getting better and better in >response to user feedback). It may not be what you are looking for, but at least I can tell you what it is and isn't.
>
>Thanks a lot for dropping in.
>
>I certainly agree with what you said in terms of mobile vs workstation usage. No problem with mobiles (I've been in the web-based field with python-driven stuff for a while). But at this stage I am working on an application that is not so much of a mobile or web-based stuff.
>
>I reckon there are still a few field of application - and application development - that do not lend themselves to touchscreen or mobile screen formats. The current application I am working on is, at this stage, some kind of resource editor à l'ancienne where the "file" menu still makes a lot of sense.
>
>I'd certainly be glad to be able to work with a toolset that offert a multi-paradigm where you can build applications - or in this case specific functional subsets of the good old ones - that would work smaller format, including mobile and pads, or web-based stuff. But sure that should not get in the way in the first place of traditional PC/Mac.
>
>At this stage, I still use the office pack on win32, painting tools of various natures. And so do my customers who are all business working within closed doors. For some reasons by the way.
>
>In the short term I feel more comfortable with the polar fox offer from this perspective. Since I could possibly plainly recompile the original application which essentially fox-based plus scripting of a host of external WIN32 libraries via COM. But may i say I still have some doubt that they (Alaska) will be able to deliver something that would be up to the mark.
>
>I am currently investigating a full rewrite of the application within wxpython (looks like python 3 is coming) or alternatively QT via PyQT/QTside. May I say that I am not at all upset by the fact that those two environments are late on mobile development. Just that they are just one step too low-level for my taste (not python, the GUI...).
>
>Wxwidgets is only starting to have an android port. And QT is certainly neither on the forefront here. But that does not bother me. Just a question of customer requirements.
>
>But sure l should I say that what Lianja looks gorgeous:)
>
>Putting foxpro, python, QT and QTmobile within a relatively thigh environment package. I understand the boss is bright and I am ready to welcome a new kid on the block. But in the short term is the target not too much of an embrace? Especially in terms of quality, support and documentation. Ready for a try of course!