Correction: "amused reply". Apologies if this wasn't apparent.
The incident should serve as a timely reminder of the perils of hair-trigger cinematography when the resulting vignettes are primarily used to draw attention to the perceived shortcomings of other people's software, especially when the shortcomings later turn out to be in one's own software; shortcomings apparently overlooked while the UI is augmented with translucent windows and other such visual niceties. Nothing wrong with bugs: the very best authors write software with bugs in them, and I have no objection to a descriptive bug report when a cinematic featurette is not absolutely required. I have no wish to impede the narrative flow of the Aspeqt monologue; I merely point out that it shouldn't have taken FJC's could-hardly-hold-the-camera-steady-for-laughing reply to instigate the troubleshooting procedure you describe in the second paragraph of post 672. This procedure is best carried out prior to unfolding the director's chair, since otherwise, the diagnosis of issues in the "official" build of Aspeqt becomes circumstantially dependent on FJC's deadpan, pragmatic response. This means that were it not for FJC's response, the latest bug in Aspeqt might not have been discovered, and the alarming upshot of this is that I have been an unwitting instrument in the "testing programme" of Aspeqt - an application I no longer use in its latest incarnations, and have no desire to test.
In short, there are less convoluted, non-cinematic ways to discover bugs: namely, the awkward business of testing. Only then can we attain the prized goal of "Solid software".
I'm just a stalker here, but I would like to reply about your message.
Why do you use this kind of response? Why are you so much strong opinionated? If you have something against the author or the way of making software, then keep use the software you prefer or make your own (I cannot find one in atari8.co.uk).
Why do you write in that redundant and literary-like way? I appreciate your skills at the English language, something it's quite difficult to me as I'm not native English and my formal education was quite crappy, but I don't understand why the same message can't be written in a simpler form.
It seems you feel upset about someone saying your software was buggy, because you're too proud on it. Why people can't fail? And if the current AspeQt developer failed in the way of dealing the problem, he can now understand his wrong ways. People can learn from it's errors.
Personally, I would prefer a more universal program like AspeQt but for 8/16bit systems (both consoles and computers). I was an uCON64 user in the past and had a MDPRO from ToToTeK, I miss that kind of software integration. But I consider AspeQt quite useful, despite I'm more of a keyboard junkie (so I would prefer a ncurses frontend). But this doesn't make me to hate AspeQt or not wanting to use it.