[quote="jaenelle":17ve1a70]The bugs were so numerous that it was good we were working as a class... so most bugs only had to be tracked down once.[/quote:17ve1a70]
This is a good point. Construct has a lot of quirks/bugs that new users need to learn about before construct can be used smoothly. Perhaps someone should make a bug avoidance tutorial.
[quote="jaenelle":17ve1a70]Many features seem to have been just tossed in without much testing. Or features are half-added and half-completed. I'm well-aware that this is open source and such, but Construct is still not at the point where it is useable as anything except the roughest of game prototypes. Or as an exercise in patience and using unstable software.[/quote:17ve1a70]
Even professional-level tools have bugs in them that need to be worked around, so at least it's a good skill to learn (not that I'm saying the developers shouldn't try to make it more stable).
[quote="jaenelle":17ve1a70]We were also unable to merge our files.[/quote:17ve1a70]
As has been mentioned, that's an unfinished feature. Hopefully that'll be finished for 1.0.
[quote="jaenelle":17ve1a70]From comments the teachers have mentioned, open source is not terribly useful when the libraries required to compile and hence fix some of the many many bugs, are not open source.[/quote:17ve1a70]
The developers know about that and are going to fix it for construct 2.
[quote="jaenelle":17ve1a70]It might be an idea to stop attempting to add new features and get the current features stabilized first.[/quote:17ve1a70]
They have actually gotten to that point. However, they have mentioned that they learned to code making construct, and therefore not only is the code in many places kind of a mess, the structure of the program doesn't allow for a lot of the necessary fixes. It would be faster to recode the thing from the ground up than to fix everything, so that's what they're going to do. It won't require a complete rewrite though so it should require less work than coding construct 1 did.
[quote="jaenelle":17ve1a70]I'm aware we were using the 'unstable release' but it is not possible to use the stable release when all help, advice, and such only refers to the most recent unstable. And the first response to any question is 'be sure you are using the latest unstable!'[/quote:17ve1a70]
The term stable/unstable is a bit of a misnomer. Stable doesn't really mean that it's entirely stable - it means that it's stable enough, but there's not any new huge crazy bug in it anywhere so it's at least as safe enough to use as the previous one. I would vote that a lot of the time the unstable releases are as stable as the stable ones. I think they need to put a new label on them that's less confusing.
Also, I'm not sure if you saw it already, but you should read Ashley's post on the topic here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6553&start=20#p51890