Blocs: what do people think?

+1 for me as well. I will be moving forward with Stacks and Foundation since I have an investment in stacks, feel secure with the active Weaverspace community and the excellent support from it and Joe Workman. For me RW is just a shell for Stacks at this point and I’m looking forward to what Isaiah has in store with Stacks 5.


I don’t know how anybody could abandon RapidWeaver for Stacks. You guys just have your priorities all wrong. You’re not remembering what’s really important to the World Wide Web of people we all have to think about. Realmac plants trees whenever we buy RapidWeaver., and that’s what’s most important. You can’t save the earth with Stacks.

See Forest |

But you can be happy in the knowledge that the hundreds if not thousands of dollars we’ve personally spent of developer stacks will be carried over into the new Stack app. I’m all for planting more trees but my main concern is the loss of all that money and time I’ve spent learning the system.

@aidy The way I understand it, it’s the stack developer preventing you from using your purchased stacks in RapidWeaver. So the loss of time and money would be down to them wouldn’t it?

Best read this post from the top


Please read this perfect statement from @habitualshaker, I hope you’ll understand why most of the stack add-on developers refrain from supporting Elements in RW9.

1 Like

Not quite the way I understand it.

Realmac have a shiny new AP for RW9I, which would require plug-in developers to completely rewrite their code for it to work in RW9. Stacks would be one of the plugins affected, and by the comments from Yourhead it would be a monumental bit of work to get Stacks compatible with RW9

Meanwhile RW9’s big new thing will be Elements, which there isn’t a lot of details about apart from marketing hyperbole. They sound suspiciously like stacks, except you won’t need to buy the Stacks plugin anymore.

Realmac is offering stacks developers the chance to convert their stacks to Elements, cutting out Yourhead’s Stacks plugin altogether. It is meant to be voluntary but by the sounds of it the code could do it with or without permission (not a dev so don’t fully know all the technical details).

To me it’s Realmac trying to cutout the middleman so they have more control of their platform (as is their choice to do so) but it seems to come at the expense of cutting out Yourhead Stacks plugin, which to my mind has the only thing that has kept RW alive for many years as there has been little added to it. Without Stacks and stacks, RW remains a basic template based page builder with little native customisation options. The fact Realmac’s own site is built on RW + Stacks + stacks says a lot about the functionality of RW without Stacks.

It’s a very cold business decision but it’s their choice and I’ll not be investing in RW9, instead I’ll buy the Stacks app when it comes out.

Meanwhile RW8 + Stacks will still work until Apple changes something.


Yeah I’ve read quite a bit on the other threads, it’s quite fascinating. I understand why the developers have stated their position, that is of course down to them.

It’s just that I’ve spend good money on stacks, I can’t help but feel put out that someone else is dictating to me how I should use those stacks. After all, I’ve purchased a license to use them. I should be able to use them as I see fit, no?

You purchased them to use in RW8 or earlier, not RW9.

1 Like

Do you have any other software that you would expect the license to include the right to reverse engineer it, re-compile it (transpile) and use it in another application outside of that for which it was originally designed?


@aidy This can’t be right at all. When I purchased a later version of RW or Stacks I could use any existing stacks I had. I didn’t need to purchase stacks again when I moved from RW7 to RW8.

@tav You sound like you know your stuff, way more than me LOL. But am I right in thinking the stacks are just html/css? I’m not sure you can reverse engineer them as such. I thought the license I purchase for the individual stacks would allow me to use them on websites, regardless of how they got there.

I’m not advocating anything, just trying to understand where I fit into all this

But you probably upgraded Stacks. Look, I’ve lost count of the software and apps that I’ve purchased over the years that either didn’t keep up with the new Mac OS or IOS and fell by the wayside. When you purchase an app you don’t expect it to last forever - maybe this is the case here. If Stacks is not compatible with RW9 then so be it. You don’t have to purchase RW9 or the Stacks 5 app, for the foreseeable future your set up will work, just not forever.

stacks contain logic and many other language features from the Stacks API that does things like translate your settings into the output code, generate the settings controls that you see in the plugin page etc etc. This is the part that is being transpiled by Elements into RW IL (intermediate language) - from the RM statements.

Does this violate copyrights?

Software will work as stated when you bought it. You are entitled to that. You can expect support for that.

If you get anything more than that, just consider yourself lucky.

1 Like

I don’t see how it could violate any copyright as the work (stack) is copyrighted and the stack developer would still hold this. As a customer, I have a license to use said work for my needs.

@Bazza You make a good point, I guess I can’t expect support for a stack if I’m using it in another product. It would be unfair on the stack developer if there were problems.

No, you have completely misunderstood what Dan has announced for RW9.

As the roadmap stands, not a single RW project file using any stacks, will work in RW9, unless a series of high risk, yet to be demonstrated, events occur and users pay extra for. These will potentially involve a cost to noble each stack to work in ElementZ, and also a cost for the ongoing support of the nobled stack to run in an unknown plugin that does not even exist in a form that can be shown in public yet. It also requires that any Stacks developer discard their conscience, dignity and respect for another developers intellectual property developed over 17 years.

Dan has annexed Isaiah by breaking the API between RW and Stacks, meaning that Stacks would need a total rewrite from the ground up. Even if Isaiah were to invest 1000’s of hours into a new Stacks version for RW9, what would be gained when Dan is telling users that “Elements will be compatible with stacks API”.

The solution is either to do nothing and continue using RW8 + Stacks for guaranteed 100% compatibility with RW projects or to wait for Isaiah to complete Stacks App.

This has all turned into a very ugly public relations disaster for Dan, that will take a great deal to attempt to try to put right. Also please be aware that Dan has banned people from the RM forum and removed posts that challenge or disagree with his plot, so you will not get the full picture on that forum.

Also, any Stacks developer who is naive enough to announce at this stage, they will support Elements is technically deluded or just drunk on drinking Dan’s bath water or both.


I think it’s worth pointing out that an OS update could break either RW8 or the current version of Stacks at some stage, so nobody should automatically assume this will be a stable option for a few years. RW7 will not even preview a page without crashing on me in Monterey.

1 Like

For example, my prerequisites define it clear: RW8 + Stacks 4 Plugin.

No Stacks Plugin in RW9, no way to use the purchased stack add-on there.

Thanks for clarifying @Jannis. I’ll know to stay away from your stacks if I have to re-purchase them for use in the next version of the Stacks plugin or the Stacks App.

1 Like