Neewbie Observations

I recently started using Scrivener to help me put together a book I am writing about a software project I am working on. I’m a developer and so I use an Integrated Development Environments (IDE) all the time. What struck me right away was how similar the two enviromenets actually are. In both you have content that compiles into an end product. In my favourite IDE, Visual Studio you have the Solution Explorer (like the binder) which has seperate sections for header files, source files, etc but you can be more specific and add sub folders to those to group your files more clearly.

I see comments that there is a steap learning curve to learn Scrivener and i can understand that, but if you are a developer then all this seems quite familiar. I suspect the same is true of anyone who has used FrameMaker or similar to put together technical documents. I used to use Madcap Flare to do this and it was a nightmare. Scrivener is much much better. I’m already a fan!

6 Likes

I agree with you about the similarly to an IDE. What’s interesting about that is Keith Blount, the guy who originally designed and built Scrivener for the Mac, was not a developer - he taught himself how to code while building Scrivener.

I was an OG developer back in the 80s-90s, so never worked professionally in the modern IDE’s you’re used to. But still, upon first launching Scrivener way back when I more or less immediately felt right at home. For me it’s always seemed a very sensible interface, and separating the writing aspect from the producing aspect via compile always seems a very sensible approach.

Best,
Jim

2 Likes

This must be why I used and understood Scrivener in one evening after finishing the Interactive Tutorial from the Help menu.
And I never grasped why people would not use Compile and cut and pasted text out of the Editor into Word and WordPress.
Of course, the Compile process needs a lot of ‘debugging’, but when a Compile Format is working as expected, compiling is literally pressing one button.

2 Likes

Could also say it is pretty much the same as an audio production software too. With busses and…

Basically you have tracks, busses with each their effects, a patch bay + mixer and a final compiled track.
Except here the effects are formattings, the patch bay/busses are the section types (leading to section layouts), and the tracks are documents.

Scrivener is somewhat a Protools designed for text. lol.

1 Like

I was using Borland’s Turbo C IDE back then. Wondering what OG is?

1 Like

OG definition here. Apparently it might have been bad form to use it to refer to myself! What I meant was “old-timer”. :nerd_face:

Back then I played around with Borland Delphi, and over the years I’ve used a few PC-based environments from Microsoft for personal fun. But my pro/paid development work was always on IBM mid-range and mainframe computers, which at the time had rather primitive coding environments. My very first job had me typing JCL on punch cards.

Best,
Jim

2 Likes