Anyone tried REALbasic?

[Jim Hubbard]

I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.

I am tired of Microsoft constantly changing things and breaking backward
compatibility ON PURPOSE.

I'd like to offer my customers the ability to run my apps on Windows, MAC or
Linux - and REALbasic claims the ability to do that from one set of source
code.

Just wondering if anyone else had tried it.

I hope it lives up to it's promises better than the JAVA "write once run
anywhere" thing did.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Stephany Young]

Go for it Jim.

If you switch to that then we won't have to put up with your disparaging
diatribes anymore.

 

[JiangZemin]

That sounds like a great idea!
I urge you to focus on becoming a REALbasic developer. Im certain your
customers will appreciate your choice. Good luck!

 

[Brian Henry]

if you don't break something at some point you cant progress forward... and
microsoft does its best to maintain backward compatability through time..
it's not an easy task for any company... and write once and run anywhere has
always been BS because even in JAVA across platforms you have compatability
issues and things behaving differently

 

[Jim Hubbard]

if you don't break something at some point you cant progress forward...
and microsoft does its best to maintain backward compatability through
time.. it's not an easy task for any company... and write once and run
anywhere has always been BS because even in JAVA across platforms you have
compatability issues and things behaving differently

The examples I have tried from the Monkeybread website are far too slow to
be of any real use.

So far.....the only impressive thing I see are the claims on the website.

It's like eating marshmallows when you're hungry for a steak.

Kylix claimed cross-compatibility once-upon-a-time. But I don't know if
they ever delivered. And, the Kylix website shows no real changes since
2002.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Gerald Aichholzer]

Hi Jim,

I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.

you can get REALBasic Standard for free (from now through March 31,
2005):

http://www.realsoftware.com/Realbasic/vb6/

Unfortunately I still haven't received any license key although I
have submitted my data about 24 hours ago.

REALbasic is the only (*) solution if your target machines are
Windows/Linux _and_ Mac OS 9.x because there's no modern Java
for Mac OS Classic. Mono (an open source .NET development environ-
ment) supports Mac OS X only.

(*) there's also Omnis Studio which supports Windows, Linux, So-
laris and both Mac OS but it is rather expensive and requieres
runtime licenses per client

HTH,
Gerald

 

[Markus]

I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone

else had tried it.

I have - and I love it. I work on a Mac and tried compiling a Windows
version of my software - worked without a problem (haven't tried Linux yet)


Markus

--

Dr. Markus Winter


OligoChecker 2.16.1 ­ manage oligos, check which ones are suitable for PCR
on a given sequence, run simulated PCR

A MacOS X version can be downloaded from

http://versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/24811

and a MacOS 8.5 or 9 version from

http://versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macos/24813

A Win98/Me/2000/XP version can be downloaded from

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/win/35458

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.

I tried it some time ago, but I currently don't use it. Personally, there
are some things in REALbasic I like, but REALbasic has its disadvantages
too. For me, the lack of a component concept makes REALbasic unsuitable in
many scenarios where versioning is important. However, when creating
smaller applications which should run without an installation process (for
example, on CD-ROM) REALbasic is a good choice.

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

if you don't break something at some point you cant progress forward...
and microsoft does its best to maintain backward compatability through
time..

That's a joke in the case of the Visual Basic language, isn't it?

 

[Jim Hubbard]

I tried it some time ago, but I currently don't use it. Personally, there
are some things in REALbasic I like, but REALbasic has its disadvantages
too. For me, the lack of a component concept makes REALbasic unsuitable
in many scenarios where versioning is important. However, when creating
smaller applications which should run without an installation process (for
example, on CD-ROM) REALbasic is a good choice.

Thanks Herfried!

Seems like VB.Net could benefit from packing down to a single exe with no
dependencies outside the exe.

Jim Hubbard

 

[Steve]

You can try delphi but if you absolutely want MacOS I think RB is the tool
for you.
it's advantage : CrossPaltform
the worst : not so much component compare to Delphi, and not so easy to
create fast CAD application (in particulary when needed fast pixel access).

Today I still use Delphi because of this, one day when I will have to do a
simple app I will go to RB.

So if you need MacOs -> RB
if you only need Windows/Linux ->Delphi/Kylix

 

[Terry Olsen]

Seems like VB.Net could benefit from packing down to a single exe with no
dependencies outside the exe.

I haven't had any problems with just delivering an exe file generated by
VS.NET. The DotNetFramework is included with Windows XP and if a W2K box
auto-updates, it has it also. I haven't had the need to create an installer
or bundle any runtime files with an exe (other than 3rd party dll's). Of
course, I'm not creating huge enterprise level apps either.

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
¤ else had tried it.
¤
¤ I am tired of Microsoft constantly changing things and breaking backward
¤ compatibility ON PURPOSE.
¤
¤ I'd like to offer my customers the ability to run my apps on Windows, MAC or
¤ Linux - and REALbasic claims the ability to do that from one set of source
¤ code.
¤
¤ Just wondering if anyone else had tried it.
¤
¤ I hope it lives up to it's promises better than the JAVA "write once run
¤ anywhere" thing did.
¤
¤ Jim Hubbard
¤

It's a decent RAD based BASIC language development product but it lacks important features supported
in Classic Visual Basic. I'm sure multi-platform support would be limited in one way or another as
all operating systems do not necessarily support the same features.

Is it a replacement for Classic Visual Basic? Depends upon whether you can afford to sacrifice some
rather important features.

Is it in the same class as Visual Basic.NET? Not even close.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Mitchell Vincent]

The DotNetFramework is included with Windows XP

It is? Hmm. Not on the Windows XP Pro that I get from MSDN every so
often. I had to install it on this workstation (using a retail boxed
version of Windows XP). AFAIK the .NET framework is still a totally
optional install from WindowsUpdate and has never been included in the
base install of the OS or any service pack. It really NEEDS to be
included, but hasn't (AFAIK).

Please, correct me if I'm wrong!!!

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ Terry Olsen wrote:
¤ >>Seems like VB.Net could benefit from packing down to a single exe with no
¤ >>dependencies outside the exe.
¤ >
¤ >
¤ > The DotNetFramework is included with Windows XP
¤ >
¤
¤ It is? Hmm. Not on the Windows XP Pro that I get from MSDN every so
¤ often. I had to install it on this workstation (using a retail boxed
¤ version of Windows XP). AFAIK the .NET framework is still a totally
¤ optional install from WindowsUpdate and has never been included in the
¤ base install of the OS or any service pack. It really NEEDS to be
¤ included, but hasn't (AFAIK).
¤
¤ Please, correct me if I'm wrong!!!

You are correct.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Scott Wyatt]

The examples I have tried from the Monkeybread website are far too slow to
be of any real use.

So far.....the only impressive thing I see are the claims on the website.

It's like eating marshmallows when you're hungry for a steak.

Kylix claimed cross-compatibility once-upon-a-time. But I don't know if
they ever delivered. And, the Kylix website shows no real changes since
2002.

Jim Hubbard

I agree that RB has issues, but we have managed to create a fairly large
enterprise application with it on OS X. We did not aim for
cross-platform design, however, which might say something about our
approach. We just wanted a decent RAD tool on OS X.

I'm a Delphi bigot, but Delphi's clone on OS X requires X11 and my
clients would never want a non-Mac-like app, and neither would I as a
Mac user.

Borland placed Kylix on maintenance mode after FreePascal's Lazarus
project took the spec open source. Using FreePascal, you can create
software for Windows and Linux with no problems. The Mac programs
require X11. I have been in touch with the developers and some progress
is being made with the Lazarus IDE on the Mac.

You can write in Delphi or FreePascal and recompile on other platforms.
It is easier to use FreePascal all the way through, though -- some of
the libraries are GPL and some are LGPL or BSD. I would want to make
sure I used only BSD-style software, since I sell my work!

In order to compile commercial software, you can use FreePascal (just
like gcc on the Mac) but you must select a widget kit that allows for
commercial targets. I'm not sure how this is done on Linux by REALbasic,
or if they leave it to the developer.

You can locate the Lazarus IDE: http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/

So just what is Lazarus?

Lazarus is the class libraries for Free Pascal that emulate Delphi. Free
Pascal is a GPL'ed compiler that runs on Linux, Win32, OS/2, 68K and
more. Free Pascal is designed to be able to understand and compile
Delphi syntax, which is of course OOP. Lazarus is the part of the
missing puzzle that will allow you to develop Delphi like programs in
all of the above platforms. Unlike Java which strives to be a write once
run anywhere, Lazarus and Free Pascal strives for write once compile
anywhere.

What you need to realize is that the code generated must still be
compiled on each platform -- only the source code is portable.

Even with Lazarus, I would suggest you tweak the compiler on each
platform -- especially Linux. There are several settings that seem to
behave differently on Linux, mainly how many passes the compiler should
make for optimal run speed.

- Scott

 

[Eric Hanson]

I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.

I am tired of Microsoft constantly changing things and breaking backward
compatibility ON PURPOSE.

I'd like to offer my customers the ability to run my apps on Windows, MAC or
Linux - and REALbasic claims the ability to do that from one set of source
code.

Just wondering if anyone else had tried it.

I hope it lives up to it's promises better than the JAVA "write once run
anywhere" thing did.

Jim Hubbard

I use it. I develop in Windows and compile console apps for windows and
linux without difficulty. I have not tried a GUI app in linux, but would
not expect problems with one.

I'm generally happy with the product and opt for it over VB for any
'from-scratch' development.

-JEH

 

[Rick Rothstein]

It's a decent RAD based BASIC language development product but it
lacks important features supported

in Classic Visual Basic.

Is it a replacement for Classic Visual Basic? Depends upon whether you can afford to sacrifice some
rather important features.

I'm sure you could help the Real Software company develop REALbasic into
the product you think it should be if you would list the features that
you see it lacking. I'm sure that if implementing them in future
versions or upgrades is possible, the Real Software company will make an
attempt to do so.

Rick Rothstein - MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

It is? Hmm. Not on the Windows XP Pro that I get from MSDN every so often.
I had to install it on this workstation (using a retail boxed version of
Windows XP). AFAIK the .NET framework is still a totally optional install
from WindowsUpdate and has never been included in the base install of the
OS or any service pack. It really NEEDS to be included, but hasn't
(AFAIK).

Please, correct me if I'm wrong!!!

You are right, but the .NET Framework was available on the Windows XP
SP1/SP2 CD-ROM version.

 

[Paul Mitchum]

Is it a replacement for Classic Visual Basic? Depends upon whether you can
afford to sacrifice some rather important features.

Such as what?

Many plug-in authors and other code-sharers have extended REALbasic in a
lot of good directions, so whatever you think is lacking might actually
be out there as a drop-in solution.