It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen), but
now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized business. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...9ca99eb0e7c328
Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.
Jim Hubbard 92  2567 
Curious, I wonder where MS main customer base resides, the US or Offshore?
MS is fully aware that Windows became a hit on the PC's because the
Developers supported it. Can there really be that much money in the selling
of Development software that it can risk upsetting its OS Developers. I
think MS and us all are facing a changing world.
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:6K********************@giganews.com... It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen),
but now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized
business.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...9ca99eb0e7c328
Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.
Jim Hubbard
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:6K********************@giganews.com... It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen),
but now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized
business.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...9ca99eb0e7c328
Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.
Jim Hubbard
I have made no attempts to hide my displeasure at the way Microsoft has
treated the VB6 developers - as you will notice in the Microsoft.public.vb
newsgroup postings.
And, with the current pricing structure of MSDN and rising costs of
Microsoft's desktop software, I truly believe we need a valid alternative to
Microsoft developer tools. Currently, I am looking into REALbasic
( www.REALbasic.com) as just such an alternative.
Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do. Don't expect it to be anything
except REALbasic.
If you are a classic Visual Basic developer (pre-VB.Net), you will find the
interface and syntax very familiar. You will be able to upgrade your VB6
apps better than Microsoft's transition tool to VB.Net. And, the coming
2005 interface (60 days until release) has a much enhanced UI (screenshots
at http://www.realsoftware.com/demo15/).
REALbasic 5.5 is even FREE to former Visual Basic developers and they will
receive a discount on REALbasic 2005 when it gets released in 60 days (or
less). Just sign up here - http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/vb6/index.php - BEFORE APRIL 15, 2005.
Although those reasons are all good enough to at least take a look at
REALbasic, the true value of REALbasic, for developers AND end users, is
freedom of choice with the OS. REALbasic applications are truly
cross-platform and will run on MAC, Linux or Windows machines. This means
that, as prices continue to climb for Microsoft MSDN subscriptions (almost
$10,000 for the top MSDN subscription) Microsoft OSs and Microsoft software
(like $499 for Office 2003 Pro) you and your customers have the option of
choosing a less expensive OS like MAC, a supported (but way less expensive
than XP) Linux OS like Novell's Linux desktop, Red Hat Workstation or even a
FREE OS like one of the hundreds of free Linux distros.
Microsoft has shown that they no longer value (or even listen to) their
customers. They will be the next IBM.....decimating the empire that they
have built by ignoring customer needs and pricing themselves out of Windows
development.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft IS pricing themselves out of the
software market by pricing the small and mid-sized business out of Windows
development.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting that the ability for small and mid-sized
shops to do their own development is a large part of what has made Microsoft
the largest software company in the world. Its what drew small companies to
Windows - the ability to develop their own relatively inexpensive software
solutions in-house. Not to mention the millions of developers that used
Windows tools to develop and sell their own software.
And, while there are certainly alternatives other than REALbasic (Mono +
Linux, C++ + MAC, Java, Borland's Delphi, etc.) None of them offer the
platform dependence that REALbasic does........nope, not even JAVA.
I humbly suggest you take a look at REALbasic. Even if you don't choose it
as your development platform, at least you know what's out there and the
possibilities for true cross-platform development.
Whatever development platform you choose, may I suggest that it be
cross-platform. Not because Microsoft is big and should be crushed. I'm
not now (nor have ever been) anti-Microsoft. But, I am pro-me and pro-my
customers.
Being pro-me and pro-my customers, I have to make hard decisions to protect
them and me from future harm. One of those decisions is the decision to
begin developing cross-platform solutions for my customer base, so that they
have the freedom to move to a more-affordable OS and more affordable
development platform for their company's specific needs.
For most small businesses, not being on a Microsoft OS is not a problem.
Most, if not all of the software they write is for internal use. So, their
OS and desktop software decisions can be more financially driven. This
means that using Linux (even the MAC OS is cheaper than XP) for a desktop
solution in many small and mid-sized businesses is an easy call.
Their daily task is not to use Microsoft products.....it's to get business
done in a manner that saves time and money while not sacrificing quality.
Microsoft would do well to understand that.
I believe that responsible developers and ISVs owe it to their customers to
give themselves and their customers the option of OS independence. Giving
REALbasic a look might help you towards that goal.
Jim Hubbard
(I will not respond to flames.....although serious questions or debate is
welcomed.)
Jim,
You told us a week ago that you was starting to investigate how you could
use Visual.Studio Net and its tools. Are you proceeding already with that?
Cor
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... Jim,
You told us a week ago that you was starting to investigate how you could
use Visual.Studio Net and its tools. Are you proceeding already with that?
Cor
I have been playing with VB.Net 2005 Beta. It looked much better than the
2003 version and even got it's groove back a little with the simplified
interface.
But, faced with the outrageous pricing of the MSDN subscriptions, I am
forced to look at alternatives in making my decisions.
I also have to have my customers' best interest at heart, as well as my own.
I cannot, at this time, justify the continuation of the purchase and use of
the Microsoft OS, software and development tools when taking their pricing
into consideration VS the alternatives available to myself and my customers.
A company that makes Widgets can make and sell Widgets on Linux or MAC just
as easily as on Windows if they choose their development tools and desktop
software wisely.
So, why continue to pay the high "tea taxes" of Microsoft?
Although I have not made my final decision, I am leaning towards throwing
the Microsoft desktop into the harbor.
Jim Hubbard
why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do it
all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET
framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont want
to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't mean you
need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET framework
SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you need a
graphical experience also.
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:Ea********************@giganews.com...
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... Jim,
You told us a week ago that you was starting to investigate how you could
use Visual.Studio Net and its tools. Are you proceeding already with
that?
Cor
I have been playing with VB.Net 2005 Beta. It looked much better than the
2003 version and even got it's groove back a little with the simplified
interface.
But, faced with the outrageous pricing of the MSDN subscriptions, I am
forced to look at alternatives in making my decisions.
I also have to have my customers' best interest at heart, as well as my
own. I cannot, at this time, justify the continuation of the purchase and
use of the Microsoft OS, software and development tools when taking their
pricing into consideration VS the alternatives available to myself and my
customers.
A company that makes Widgets can make and sell Widgets on Linux or MAC
just as easily as on Windows if they choose their development tools and
desktop software wisely.
So, why continue to pay the high "tea taxes" of Microsoft?
Although I have not made my final decision, I am leaning towards throwing
the Microsoft desktop into the harbor.
Jim Hubbard
"Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do
it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET
framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont
want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't
mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET
framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you
need a graphical experience also.
Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
competitive with other .Net development shops.
The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy. That
puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
Like the Mono project. It's far behind the Microsoft C# IDE and the VB
version of the Mono project is even worse.
You have to be able to compete in the arena that you choose to fight in.
That's one reason all developers want the highest MSDN subscriptions.
Besides having to wear many hats at their jobs (especially at small
businesses), they also need to be able to do anything that is possible with
..Net (like when your boss sees another competing app do something and says
to make your do it too) . With free IDEs, most of the time, this simply
isn't possible.
The IDE is only the tip of the iceberg. Breaking backwards compatibility
and the ridiculous cost of the Microsoft OS and software ($500 for Office
2003 pro - give me a break) are also main factors in the decision that needs
to be made by all small businesses before they got to .Net and on to
Longhorn.
If you can do your business on a different OS for less money, that's the
financially responsible thing to do.
Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue to
allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.
Jim Hubbard
Jim Hubbard wrote: "Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do
it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET
framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont
want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't
mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET
framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you
need a graphical experience also.
Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
competitive with other .Net development shops.
The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy. That
puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
That may not always be true. With sufficient numbers of
developers jumping ship, that adds a significant incentive
to make better 3rd party IDEs faster. Also, while those
who -copy- MS tend to be inferior, there are a number
of third parties who offer superior features that use
a different idea of how to do things.
Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue to
allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.
Which a lot of people may decide to do.
Otis,
Hubbard's opinion is shared by a lot of companies. For instance, the
previous company I worked for (small company) decided to switch to Java just
because MS development environment became too costly compared to the benefits.
I can imagine that other small companies will drop MS development
environment for cheaper environments. I'm neither for nor against this
strategy; it all depends on how much money you can make with a certain
project. If MS env. is too costly people/companies will change environment.
That's pure economy.
Another sad thing perhaps, is that prices of other software products will
increase because of this.
I'm very curious where this will lead...
TT
"Otis Mukinfus" wrote: On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:53:37 -0400, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote:
I don't know anything about you, Jim, but Brian was right about doing it for
free, and if you've had an MSDN subscription in the past, then you already have
a license to use the tools that came with it forever. So why don't you continue
to use the tools you have (the MSDN subscription has included VB6 since it's
release, so you have a copy of it) and get on with making money instead of
whining. I suspect you spend more time writing crap like that below than
working anyway...
just my opinion. I could be wrong.
"Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do
it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the .NET
framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont
want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't
mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the .NET
framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you
need a graphical experience also.
Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
competitive with other .Net development shops.
The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy. That
puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
Like the Mono project. It's far behind the Microsoft C# IDE and the VB
version of the Mono project is even worse.
You have to be able to compete in the arena that you choose to fight in.
That's one reason all developers want the highest MSDN subscriptions.
Besides having to wear many hats at their jobs (especially at small
businesses), they also need to be able to do anything that is possible with
.Net (like when your boss sees another competing app do something and says
to make your do it too) . With free IDEs, most of the time, this simply
isn't possible.
The IDE is only the tip of the iceberg. Breaking backwards compatibility
and the ridiculous cost of the Microsoft OS and software ($500 for Office
2003 pro - give me a break) are also main factors in the decision that needs
to be made by all small businesses before they got to .Net and on to
Longhorn.
If you can do your business on a different OS for less money, that's the
financially responsible thing to do.
Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue to
allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.
Jim Hubbard
Otis Mukinfus
http://www.otismukinfus.com
"Otis Mukinfus" <ot**@mukinfus.com> wrote in message
news:4q********************************@4ax.com... On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:53:37 -0400, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please>
wrote:
I don't know anything about you, Jim, but Brian was right about doing it
for
free, and if you've had an MSDN subscription in the past, then you already
have
a license to use the tools that came with it forever. So why don't you
continue
to use the tools you have (the MSDN subscription has included VB6 since
it's
release, so you have a copy of it) and get on with making money instead of
whining. I suspect you spend more time writing crap like that below than
working anyway...
You are right. You can use the tools forever. But, Microsoft is actively
breaking backwards compatability with the old tools. Case in
point....Outlook 2003.
Now, you'd think that Outlook 2003 would be backwards compatible with Office
2002. I mean, most professional companies provide backwards compatability
for 2 major versions. Microsoft used to.....but now they've chosen a path
of abandonment and intentionally breaking backwards compatibility. Why?
Nevermind the why......that's another thread.....
VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn. So, if you keep using the
VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing. Can't do that.
just my opinion. I could be wrong.
"Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there
is
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can
do
it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the
.NET
framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you dont
want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio doesn't
mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get the
.NET
framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE if you
need a graphical experience also.
Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
competitive with other .Net development shops.
The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy.
That
puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
Like the Mono project. It's far behind the Microsoft C# IDE and the VB
version of the Mono project is even worse.
You have to be able to compete in the arena that you choose to fight in.
That's one reason all developers want the highest MSDN subscriptions.
Besides having to wear many hats at their jobs (especially at small
businesses), they also need to be able to do anything that is possible
with
.Net (like when your boss sees another competing app do something and says
to make your do it too) . With free IDEs, most of the time, this simply
isn't possible.
The IDE is only the tip of the iceberg. Breaking backwards compatibility
and the ridiculous cost of the Microsoft OS and software ($500 for Office
2003 pro - give me a break) are also main factors in the decision that
needs
to be made by all small businesses before they got to .Net and on to
Longhorn.
If you can do your business on a different OS for less money, that's the
financially responsible thing to do.
Increasingly I am coming to see that there's simply no reason to continue
to
allow your business to be held for ransom by Microsoft.
Jim Hubbard
Otis Mukinfus
http://www.otismukinfus.com
Jim Hubbard wrote: VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn. So, if you keep using the
VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing. Can't do that.
So Microsoft has been lying about the VB6 runtime being included in
Longhorn and supported? I think not..
--
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
"Aaron Smith" <th**********@smithcentral.net> wrote in message
news:ks*****************@newssvr17.news.prodigy.co m... Jim Hubbard wrote:
VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn. So, if you keep using
the VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing. Can't do that.
So Microsoft has been lying about the VB6 runtime being included in
Longhorn and supported? I think not..
I hadn't seen anything from Microsoft indicating support of the VB6 runtime
in Longhorn. And, since you did not feel the need to back up your statement
with a link - I went on a fact-finding mission to see if Microsoft said
anything like this on their website.
After searching for over an hour, I finally found somebody at Microsoft that
says (via his blog - not on an official Visual Basic page on the Microsoft
website) that the VB6 runtime will be shipped with Longhorn and supported
for the lifecycle of Longhorn. Read it here - http://blogs.msdn.com/JRoxe/.
I doubt this is the reference that you had in mind as it was just posted
yesterday. Could you please post your Microsoft references? I am curious as
to when this was first stated openly by Microsoft. Was it yesterday, or did
I miss something earlier (which could also be the case).
In fact, the blog directly speaks to the millions of concerned VB6
programmers and directly addresses the petition at http://classicvb.org/petition. It seems Microsoft is trying to make the
petition go away without actually DOING anything to make up for tossing out
a language that so many are so dependent on.
In part, Jay's blog states "There are strong feelings on all sides of the
issue that sparked this petition and I know that this note is not going to
address all of these concerns. However, I hope that we can continue to have
an open dialog around this issue. Some of these discussions will continue
in the public forum, but please also feel free to contact me directly."
That's just great. Whenever a company doesn't want to do anything about a
problem, but they want the bad press and problem to go away, they send out
the talkers. I'm tired of talking. FIX THE DAMNED ISSUE BY PUTTING
UNMANAGED VB6 SUPPORT INTO THE VISUAL STUDIO IDE! Nothing else is going to
make this go away.
You did it for C++, and you can do it for classic Visual Basic......the
question is will you? Or, will you continue to walk away from the largest
army of programmers the world has ever seen......the people that made you
great?
Speaking of going away, I am setting up my Novell Linux box and MAC today to
do more thorough testing of REALbasic. Looks like fun. At least I won't
have to worry about Microsoft abandoning me if I finally choose the
MAC/Linux/REALbasic route. (Go to www.realbasic.com for your FREE copy of
REALbasic 5.5 standard until April 15, 2005.)
There is one thing, and only one thing, that will get Microsoft's attention.
Mass defection to Linux/MAC and a different programming language. They have
forgotten that the customer is always right. And, only something big will
drive that point home for them.
Although that sounds quite radical, it is no more radical than the change
that classic Visual Basic developers already have to go through with
Microsoft. And, you will at least be the partial master of your own destiny
then.....not a gnat to be swatted by the monopolistic hand of Microsoft.
And, it's much cheaper than the Microsoft solutions. Only $89.95 for a
COMPLETE desktop in Novell Linux (SUSE) 9.2 Professional. That includes
Open Office, free email clients, free IM clients, free photo editing
clients......really everything you need for day-to-day operations in most
businesses. Contrast that to XP Professional at $279.99 (for a new install)
and Office Professional 2003 at $499.99 and the $89.95 option is at least
worth a test drive.
The $780 for basic daily activities with a Microsoft desktop is more than
the hardware needed to run it......twice as much as the hardware for a
simple business workstation. And, for what? So we can say we work on a
Windows desktop? Who gives a rat's ass what desktop is in place as long as
I can accomplish my daily job of making more, cheaper and better widgets to
sell.
Most company's don't get paid because they are using Microsoft
products.....they get paid to deliver goods and services, and their clients
really don't care what OS or desktop the company uses internally. Come to
think of it.....neither do the workers.
So, who does care (besides Microsoft, of course)?
Jim Hubbard
"Ron Ruble" <ra******@att.net> wrote in message
news:19*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... Jim Hubbard wrote: "Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do
it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the
.NET framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you
dont want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio
doesn't mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get
the .NET framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE
if you need a graphical experience also.
Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
competitive with other .Net development shops.
The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy.
That puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
That may not always be true. With sufficient numbers of
developers jumping ship, that adds a significant incentive
to make better 3rd party IDEs faster. Also, while those
who -copy- MS tend to be inferior, there are a number
of third parties who offer superior features that use
a different idea of how to do things.
I wish this were the case. But, it seems that no other company has put 2
and 2 together yet.....
Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients
that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money and
the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
applications.
You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), Mandrake,
even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie and
say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft. The thing
they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual Basic
was for Microsoft).
You see, the combination of affordable desktop, plus and affordable,
easy-to-use development platform is the key to winning the war with
Microsoft. You win the war in the trenches.....by defection - like
introducing democracy into a totalitarian society.
When you have an affordable desktop, people WILL buy it. People will try
it. And, if there is an easy development platform for it
(say.....REALbasic), millions of disatisfied classic Visual Basic
programmers (and many non-programmers) will write applications for the
cheaper OS, because (A) they can afford to and (B) they like to write
applications for fun and to sell.
Once this starts, more and more applications become available for your
affordable OS. Then, more and more poeple will buy the OS because of the
vast number of applications available for it.
This model has been proven (and evidentally forgotten) by none other than
Microsoft itself. I told my sister, just the other night, that had I a
compnay that produced an OS like Apple's MAC, Linspire or Novell Linux and
if I could acquire a product like REALbasic to bundle with my OS.....that I
would change the world.
And, I would.
Jim Hubbard
Inline:
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message news:ON********************@giganews.com...
<snip>
Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a
run for their money and the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and applications.
You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), Mandrake, even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and
you don't have to lie and say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft. The thing they are missing is an easy
way to develop applications (like Visual Basic was for Microsoft).
Windows XP Home Edition can be had for less than $100.00 (USD) almost anywhere. And extra licenses are not that expensive.
You see, the combination of affordable desktop, plus and affordable, easy-to-use development platform is the key to winning
the war with Microsoft. You win the war in the trenches.....by defection - like introducing democracy into a totalitarian
society.
I think the affordable desktop Windows XP & development platform , Visual Basic Express (announced to be $49) will be a good,
cheap, combination for the non- programmers you mention in the paragraph below.
When you have an affordable desktop, people WILL buy it. People will try it. And, if there is an easy development platform
for it (say.....REALbasic), millions of disatisfied classic Visual Basic programmers (and many non-programmers) will write
applications for the cheaper OS, because (A) they can afford to and (B) they like to write applications for fun and to sell.
RealBasic, is not a cheap alternative to VB. Especially comparing their cheapest version , Standard, which sells for $99. ( I
know it's free for now, they are moving to a new version and it might pay them to give the Standard(current version) version
away to VB developers for free)
Where as , Visual Basic Express , will be sold for $49 and might be bundled in some other products (like books maybe) . And
having used VB Express Beta1, I can say it is and will be , a great product for the price.
To get full cross platform capability from RB requires their PRO version which sells for almost $500.00.
That is more than Visual Studio 2003 PRO currently sells for. And you get access to more than one programming language. Pretty
good deal if you need it.
Once this starts, more and more applications become available for your affordable OS. Then, more and more poeple will buy the
OS because of the vast number of applications available for it.
This model has been proven (and evidentally forgotten) by none other than Microsoft itself. I told my sister, just the other
night, that had I a compnay that produced an OS like Apple's MAC, Linspire or Novell Linux and if I could acquire a product
like REALbasic to bundle with my OS.....that I would change the world.
And, I would.
Jim Hubbard
In fact, Linux can be had for free. Along with all kinds of development tools. They are available for download everywhere.
Where the free part ends, is in the support department. Although there is plenty of online support for Linux from users and
developers, the real costs appear when a business decides to use Linux and has to retrain people to use it and support it
in-house. And for home users that are not
real computer knowledgeable, Linux is a real problem. In this case, Windows XP (to me) is a clear winner. If a home user
manages to get a Linux destro installed, (which has improved a lot) they had better be satisfied with the installed apps.
Because, if there is a special application they need or want, it may not be so easy to install (or available). And a messed up
install in Linux CAN kill the entire OS. Something, that I have not seen in a while in XP (except for Norton products.....).
I don't think the "Classic VB Developers" will be dumping Microsoft Products in favor of Linux solutions. Better to do what
they are doing and pressuring Microsoft for more support. And at least
a better migration path to newer tools. ( I tried moving a couple of my apps. to VB.NET 2003 and had so many ToDo's that it
turned out to be easier to just do a rewrite)
Anyway, I just wanted to jump in here and add my .02 to all this. I have tried RB Standard. And it is no replacement for VB6.
The only thing that RB has going for it in my opinion is being able to compile
executables for more than one OS. But, the Standard edition only does that in a very limited way. And is not good enough for
complete testing. As you probably did, I received an email from RS offering a FREE(one of my favorite words) copy of RB PRO ,
if I managed to be one of the top 100 people to get others to download and try RB Standard, thru a specialized link. Well, I
tried that and promptly got flamed for it. (in the "classic" VB newsgroups & one Linux newsgroup) So, I won't be doing that
again!!
Good luck on your quest (whatever it is)........ ( I don't think you are going to convience people to drop MS products)
james
Help me get free software at: http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC
Good till April 15, 2005
james wrote: Where as , Visual Basic Express , will be sold for $49 and might be
bundled in some other products (like books maybe) . And having used VB Express Beta1, I can say it is and will be , a great
product for the price. To get full cross platform capability from RB requires their PRO
version which sells for almost $500.00. That is more than Visual Studio 2003 PRO currently sells for. And
you get access to more than one programming language. Pretty good deal if you need it.>
Help me get free software at:
http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC Good till April 15, 2005
James,
I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.
Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?
Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.
Hi Jim, Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients
that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money and
the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
applications.
I agree.
Not only that, but I've always hated dealing with all the big
non-Microsoft vendors. Up until 2001, Microsoft were a dream company to
deal with. It was XP, and now Longhorn that put me off.
However, regarding desktops and servers; the route I'm looking into now,
is very powerful servers (e.g. Quad 64bit Sun SPARC with a big-iron
fibre SAN) This could run Solaris, or if no using Sun hardware, maybe
something like OpenBSD? There's plenty options for all the web stuff,
databases, full-text indexing and XML, and it will run a lot faster and
more stable than Windows 2003, and it would also be easier to migrate to
other servers and platforms at a later date.
This would cover all the mission critical stuff I need to do and all
apps would be available world-wide and would run x-platform and x-browser.
The desktop could be something completely unrelated, e.g. one of the
free Linux builds, but all our apps are web-enabled anyway so I'm not
sure it would matter much. The problem would arise for when we need to
use graphics - e.g. a flowchart, but I'm sure we'll find something.
The big piece of the jigsaw that's missing for our corporates internally
is how to replace Active Directory, all the user accounts and NTFS ACLs
and also an "Exchange" style mail server. These are areas I have no
solution for as yet.
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
<ge***@realsoftware.com> wrote in message news:11**********************@l41g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
james wrote:
Where as , Visual Basic Express , will be sold for $49 and might be bundled in some other products (like books maybe) . And having used VB Express Beta1, I can say it is and will be , a great
product for the price. To get full cross platform capability from RB requires their PRO
version which sells for almost $500.00. That is more than Visual Studio 2003 PRO currently sells for. And
you get access to more than one programming language. Pretty good deal if you need it.>
Help me get free software at:
http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC Good till April 15, 2005
James,
I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.
You are correct that VB Express does not include the ability to create stand alone exe's.
But, I have not found that to be as big a problem with current versions of VB as some
people like to think it is. Most end-users of an app, will (using a properly setup installer)
never notice wheather or not an application they install is a stand alone or has other files
included for it to run.
And I shouldn't have compared RB Standard to VB Express, which is not available , except
in Beta. Instead I should have used VB 2003 Standard which is available from Amazon.com
for $89.00. And the Academic Edition is cheaper too, $49.00 thru ccvsoftware.com.
Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?
Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.
Yes, RB PRO does compile for more than one platform, which is my main reason for being interested in it in the first place. And
also why I jumped on the chance to try the Standard version, and then after receiving the promotional email, try to get others
to download the "currently" free Standard Edition, in hopes of
getting a chance to win a copy of the PRO version to better test the cross-platform abilities of RB.
The Standard version does compile to other OS's but, because of the 5 minute runtime limit, it is not suffecient to test an app
properly in another OS. ( in my case Linux, using KDE) Hence, my trying to get others to download the Standard edition. Which,
I have stated in another post I got flamed for, even though I made sure to put OT in the Subject line.
That does not mean I have completely given up on RB. But, looking thru comp.lang.basic.realbasic, I have read a lot of posts
about the short-comings of RB compared to VB6. Maybe, the next version will address those issues. If so, then, I will be more
interested in it. That does not mean I will stop using VB6 or VB.NET (or other languages for that matter) as I believe in using
the correct tool for the job. And for one prospective client, I had hopes that RB would fill that need. I need to build an app
that will work both in Windows XP & Linux ( Redhat Fedora Core 3 & KDE) and would like to use something that is familiar to me
in both enviroments. RB, might be it. But, short of me winning a copy of RB PRO, I will have to at least for now, write the
demo app in two different Basic IDE's. Gambas for Linux and VB.NET 2003 for Windows XP. ( I cannot afford to spend a lot to
find out that the potential client has changed his mind).
And before I get too carried away, I have used some of those other languages in Visual Studio besides VB, at one time or
another. Which made it worth the money I paid for Visual Studio at the time.
james
Download & register ,RealBasic Standard Edition and help me win free software at: http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC
Free download good till April 15, 2005
Jim Hubbard wrote:
Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do. Don't expect it to be anything
except REALbasic.
yay, another REALbasic advocacy thread! whoopdiedoo
--
Rinze van Huizen
C-Services Holland b.v.
On 6 Apr 2005 15:21:07 -0700, ge***@realsoftware.com wrote:
¤ I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
¤ alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
¤ be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
¤ applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
¤ what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
¤ Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.
¤
¤ Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
¤ good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
¤ while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
¤ programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?
It's all about choice. While we may not use more than one language we do have a choice. We also have
a choice with respect to other features, such as the development of components for distributed
applications and shared code libraries, the development of web applications and services - choices
notably absent from REALBasic.
While touting the advantage of a multi-platform development tool I think it's also important to note
that this feature is not particularly significant with respect to demand. The cost to support
multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Jim Hubbard wrote: "Aaron Smith" <th**********@smithcentral.net> wrote in message
news:ks*****************@newssvr17.news.prodigy.co m...
Jim Hubbard wrote:
VB6 runtimes will not be supported on Longhorn. So, if you keep using
the VB6 tools, your audience dwindles to nothing. Can't do that.
So Microsoft has been lying about the VB6 runtime being included in
Longhorn and supported? I think not..
I hadn't seen anything from Microsoft indicating support of the VB6 runtime
in Longhorn. And, since you did not feel the need to back up your statement
with a link - I went on a fact-finding mission to see if Microsoft said
anything like this on their website.
After searching for over an hour, I finally found somebody at Microsoft that
says (via his blog - not on an official Visual Basic page on the Microsoft
website) that the VB6 runtime will be shipped with Longhorn and supported
for the lifecycle of Longhorn. Read it here - http://blogs.msdn.com/JRoxe/.
I doubt this is the reference that you had in mind as it was just posted
yesterday. Could you please post your Microsoft references? I am curious as
to when this was first stated openly by Microsoft. Was it yesterday, or did
I miss something earlier (which could also be the case).
Official comment from Eric Rudder at Microsoft:
'We have heard a large number of folks ask for VB6 runtime support on
Longhorn. We will do this. We will also continue to monitor how this
situation is working and make sure it works as smoothly as possible. For
VBA, we will continue to have support in "Office 12."'
Via a microsoft chat:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/chats/tran...0318_VS05.aspx
This is nothing new. I've heard this for quite a while...
That's just great. Whenever a company doesn't want to do anything about a
problem, but they want the bad press and problem to go away, they send out
the talkers. I'm tired of talking. FIX THE DAMNED ISSUE BY PUTTING
UNMANAGED VB6 SUPPORT INTO THE VISUAL STUDIO IDE! Nothing else is going to
make this go away.
Never going to happen. I personally don't want it to happen. If the apps
run for the next 5 years, that will be long enough for me to convert my
customers over to .Net. Most of my customer's are just now upgrading to
XP, so I really won't have to worry about it for a long time, if at all.
By the time they start to migrate to Longhorn, they will need to upgrade
our software too.. Selling upgrades and new features in software is what
makes us money. If a customer buys it and wants to use it for 15 years,
that's fine, but we only make money on that initial sale and then
support contracts. I'd rather sell them better software with more
features every few years plus the support contracts.
You did it for C++, and you can do it for classic Visual Basic......the
question is will you? Or, will you continue to walk away from the largest
army of programmers the world has ever seen......the people that made you
great?
Don't compare C++ to Visual Basic.
Speaking of going away, I am setting up my Novell Linux box and MAC today to
do more thorough testing of REALbasic. Looks like fun. At least I won't
have to worry about Microsoft abandoning me if I finally choose the
MAC/Linux/REALbasic route. (Go to www.realbasic.com for your FREE copy of
REALbasic 5.5 standard until April 15, 2005.)
There is one thing, and only one thing, that will get Microsoft's attention.
Mass defection to Linux/MAC and a different programming language. They have
forgotten that the customer is always right. And, only something big will
drive that point home for them.
Although that sounds quite radical, it is no more radical than the change
that classic Visual Basic developers already have to go through with
Microsoft. And, you will at least be the partial master of your own destiny
then.....not a gnat to be swatted by the monopolistic hand of Microsoft.
So, let me get this straight... You would rather spend your time and
your customer's money by downgrading them to real basic, than upgrading
them to a .Net language? Especially when that company is really small in
comparison to Microsoft? Hmm... If I were your customer, I'd be pissed
and running from you.
And, it's much cheaper than the Microsoft solutions. Only $89.95 for a
COMPLETE desktop in Novell Linux (SUSE) 9.2 Professional. That includes
Open Office, free email clients, free IM clients, free photo editing
clients......really everything you need for day-to-day operations in most
businesses. Contrast that to XP Professional at $279.99 (for a new install)
and Office Professional 2003 at $499.99 and the $89.95 option is at least
worth a test drive.
The $780 for basic daily activities with a Microsoft desktop is more than
the hardware needed to run it......twice as much as the hardware for a
simple business workstation. And, for what? So we can say we work on a
Windows desktop? Who gives a rat's ass what desktop is in place as long as
I can accomplish my daily job of making more, cheaper and better widgets to
sell.
You get what you pay for.
Most company's don't get paid because they are using Microsoft
products.....they get paid to deliver goods and services, and their clients
really don't care what OS or desktop the company uses internally. Come to
think of it.....neither do the workers.
Really? What market are you in? In ours, it matters. In fact, some IT
departments kicked us out before we switched to VB because they didn't
want non-Microsoft products in house. The same went for MySQL. Open
source? No way.. They were having none of that.... And the workers want
to get their job done. If they can't, they get fired. Try putting a
linux desktop in an manufacturing environment. It won't last. I've seen
it happen.
So, who does care (besides Microsoft, of course)?
I personally don't really care what happens to VB6 at this point. I've
started to upgrade my skills from it to VB.Net, because I saw the need.
My customers need more advanced features and better support for newer
technologies. I can do that and stay with Microsoft by moving everything
to VB.Net, or even C# if I wanted to.
I look at this as an opportunity, not a hinderance.
--
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
"Paul Clement" <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
news:6m********************************@4ax.com... On 6 Apr 2005 15:21:07 -0700, ge***@realsoftware.com wrote:
¤ I believe VB Express does not include the ability to create a stand
¤ alone application so that's not a fair comparision. VB Express will not
¤ be a good solution for anyone that wants to distribute their
¤ applications. It's also not available at the moment so we don't know
¤ what will happen with it ultimately. BTW, students can get REALbasic
¤ Standard Academic Edition for $69.95.
¤
¤ Lastly, the comparison of our Pro product to Visual Studio Pro is not a
¤ good one. Visual Studio only compiles for one platform: Windows. And
¤ while REALbasic provides only one language, I wonder how many VB
¤ programmers use the other languages that are a part of Visual Studio?
It's all about choice. While we may not use more than one language we do
have a choice. We also have
a choice with respect to other features, such as the development of
components for distributed
applications and shared code libraries, the development of web
applications and services - choices
notably absent from REALBasic.
You're right. Those things are absent right now. But, it is something the
REALbasic team is working on.
While touting the advantage of a multi-platform development tool I think
it's also important to note
that this feature is not particularly significant with respect to demand.
While still far behind Windows, the demand for Linux is growing by leaps and
bounds....if I may....
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5145332.html
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtar...004138,00.html
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/45850.htm
http://www.cioupdate.com/trends/article.php/2237451
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-821073.html
http://www.cio.com.au/index.php/id;9...3;fp;4;fpid;21
http://www.itweb.co.za/office/FirstT...0405120751.htm
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4570
http://www.tolkienonline.com/docs/6678.html
http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2004111201626NWBZDP
http://itpapers.zdnet.com/abstract.a...64&docid=88285
http://www.intranetjournal.com/artic...10_03_03a.html
http://www.novell.com/products/linux...hy_novell.html
These links were chosen to show that the adoption of Linus is not new and is
not slowing. If you'd like more let me know.
It's like the adoption of Firefox in place of IE. Firefox is making great
strides in the browser market, with no signs of stalling. People will adopt
the best technology for their enterprise, whether that is MAC, Windows or
Linux.
The adoption of Linux will happen sooner than you think, in more places than
you think. There are things in the works right now that will make Linux the
premier desktop of small and mid-sized businesses worldwide. Add them to
the governments making the switch, and you have yourself a little
revolution.
Don't worry....it'll be fun. I promise.
The cost to support
multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.
Again, you are right.
In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly. This, for
the most part, negated any potential gains from supporting Linux or MAC
operating systems.
But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software. Just click
and run on a different OS. There is no additional development required.
Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your app
on and click "Build".
REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected.
Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier than
that.
Jim Hubbard
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message news:25udnSWM8-ZUA8jfRVn-> These links were chosen to show that the
adoption of Linus is not new and is not slowing. If you'd like more let me know.
<Snipped links>
It's like the adoption of Firefox in place of IE. Firefox is making great strides in the browser market, with no signs of
stalling. People will adopt the best technology for their enterprise, whether that is MAC, Windows or Linux.
The adoption of Linux will happen sooner than you think, in more places than you think. There are things in the works right
now that will make Linux the premier desktop of small and mid-sized businesses worldwide. Add them to the governments making
the switch, and you have yourself a little revolution.
Don't worry....it'll be fun. I promise.
The cost to support
multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.
Again, you are right.
In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly. This, for the most part, negated any potential gains from
supporting Linux or MAC operating systems.
But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software. Just click and run on a different OS. There is no additional
development required. Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your app on and click "Build".
REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected. Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be
any easier than that.
Jim Hubbard
Jim, you do know that several of those links you posted are the same article don't you? And some are almost 2 years old. And
if you read those articles, it clearly states that Linux is not any cheaper than Windows from a support standpoint.
As for RealBasic and cross-platform support, have you tested it? Having downloaded the Free standard version, I can say that in
the case of a simple app, that RB will compile to Linux (haven't tested on Mac).
But, not being able to build a complicated app and fully test it in Linux (due to the 5 minute time limit in the Standard
edition) I cannot say for sure how well Linux or Mac OS is supported. So, if you are like me and have not used the PRO version
of RB, I would think it would not be a good idea to make a broad statement on how easy to develop a cross-platform application
using RB is. You cannot (or should I say , I cannot) fully stress test an application in 5 minutes in a different OS than it
was developed in and be certain that you/I will not have problems.
My final questions to you is why are you spending so much time on bashing Microsoft over all this? If you have decided to
migrate to Linux and leave Microsoft products behind, why are you still posting on all these different newsgroups? Wouldn't it
be better to get up to speed on RealBasic and Linux?
Just a few thoughts and my .02 and worth exactly what you paid for them...........
james
REALbasic does support building service applications in the
professional version, and you can also build web applications (although
a feature code-named Swordfish that has been announced for a future
version will make it much easier). If you want to know how to create an
HTTP server in REALbasic in less than 100 lines of code, I have an
article published by O'Reilly available here:
<http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2004/11/19/realbasic.html>. You
can also write Apache CGIs in REALbasic. Unfortunately, I can't seem to
locate the example online right now, but if you're interested in an
example CGI, feel free to email me off-list and I'll send you the
sample code.
Hope this helps,
Jon
--
Jonathan Johnson
REAL Software, Inc.
"james" <jjames700ReMoVeMe at earthlink dot net> wrote in message
news:u$**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:25udnSWM8-ZUA8jfRVn-> These links were chosen to show that the
adoption of Linus is not new and is not slowing. If you'd like more let me know.
<Snipped links>
It's like the adoption of Firefox in place of IE. Firefox is making
great strides in the browser market, with no signs of stalling. People
will adopt the best technology for their enterprise, whether that is MAC,
Windows or Linux.
The adoption of Linux will happen sooner than you think, in more places
than you think. There are things in the works right now that will make
Linux the premier desktop of small and mid-sized businesses worldwide.
Add them to the governments making the switch, and you have yourself a
little revolution.
Don't worry....it'll be fun. I promise.
The cost to support
multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.
Again, you are right.
In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly. This,
for the most part, negated any potential gains from supporting Linux or
MAC operating systems.
But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software. Just
click and run on a different OS. There is no additional development
required. Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to
distribute your app on and click "Build".
REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected.
Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier than
that.
Jim Hubbard
Jim, you do know that several of those links you posted are the same
article don't you?
I grabbed the links quickly, so I did not read them all as thoroughly as I
would have liked to. Arguing against points that have already been proven
to be false is a pet peeve of mine and one thing that I loathe to waste time
doing.
And some are almost 2 years >old. And if you read those articles, it
clearly states that Linux is not any cheaper than Windows from a support
standpoint.
The support costs are about the same for both platforms, but the original
cost of hardware and software is MUCH less on Linux.
As for RealBasic and cross-platform support, have you tested it?
Only for XP Pro and SUSE 9.2 Professional. I don't have a MAC handy....but
I will have one by this weekend for testing.
Having downloaded the Free standard version, I can say that in the case of
a simple app, that RB will compile to Linux (haven't tested on Mac).
But, not being able to build a complicated app and fully test it in Linux
(due to the 5 minute time limit in the Standard edition) I cannot say for
sure how well Linux or Mac OS is supported.
I talked to Geoff about this today. I told him that 5 minutes was way too
short a demo time for complicated applications, and he has an idea of how to
lengthen that time for more complicated applications. I hope he can get it
in for the version 6 release in the next 60 days.
So, if you are like me and have not used the PRO version of RB, I would
think it would not be a good idea to make a broad statement on how easy to
develop a cross-platform >application
Actually, I have been accepted into the beta program and am currently using
the latest beta to test the app out. So far, I love the look. (Geoff really
needs to show more of the interface on the website - it puts version 5.5 to
shame.)
using RB is. You cannot (or should I say , I cannot) fully stress test
an application in 5 minutes in a different OS than >it was developed in
and be certain that you/I will not have problems.
I agree, and so does Geoff. He's working on changing that.
My final questions to you is why are you spending so much time on bashing
Microsoft over all this? If you have >decided to migrate to Linux and
leave Microsoft products behind, why are you still posting on all these
different newsgroups?
I am in the process of deciding. Who knows? Microsoft could make a
decision tomorrow to actually support VB6 or even offer a valid upgrade
tool....or (GASP!) not charge $10,000 per developer for the top MSDN
subscription. If any of those things happened it would have a definite
impact on my final decision.
Hopefully these posts will help others to decide whether REALbasic is an
alternative for them. It's not for everyone. It's more for the "task
oriented" developer than the professional C++ or C# developer. At any rate,
it's certainly worth checking out.
Wouldn't it be better to get up to speed on RealBasic and Linux?
I'm working on that. Playing with the beta......and trying a simple app or
2. If those go well, I will try and port a 95,000 line application from
Visual Basic to REALbasic to really test out the limits of the conversion
process.
One step at a time.
Just a few thoughts and my .02 and worth exactly what you paid for
them...........
james
I always appreciate any honest questions or even criticisms. It's the
flaming I can do without....
Jim Hubbard
"Aaron Smith" <th**********@smithcentral.net> wrote in message
news:y5*******************@newssvr33.news.prodigy. com... Jim Hubbard wrote: That's just great. Whenever a company doesn't want to do anything about
a problem, but they want the bad press and problem to go away, they send
out the talkers. I'm tired of talking. FIX THE DAMNED ISSUE BY PUTTING
UNMANAGED VB6 SUPPORT INTO THE VISUAL STUDIO IDE! Nothing else is going
to make this go away.
Never going to happen. I personally don't want it to happen. If the apps
run for the next 5 years, that will be long enough for me to convert my
customers over to .Net.
But, what happens when a .Net patch breaks your code? Not many people have
caught onto the fact that Microsoft issues patches for .Net (although you
have to call them to get one).
If you find an error (or just some weird behavior) in the .Net framework,
Microsft may have a patch for it that you can get and apply to your systems.
You can even have it installed with your application (which would be
neccessary if you used it - as others most certainly won't have it
installed).
Problem is, if another application is already installed (or gets installed
later) that writes around the error in .Net, your patch will cause that
author's app to malfunction.
It works the other way too. If you code around all of the bugs found in
..Net (yes, I know....every program has bugs - I'm not digging at Microsoft
for not having perfect code - remeber, I liked VB6) but, another author
patches the framework, (BAM!) your code malfunctions.
It looks like trading DLL Hell for Patch Hell. What's the difference?
Most of my customer's are just now upgrading to XP, so I really won't have
to worry about it for a long time, if at all. By the time they start to
migrate to Longhorn, they will need to upgrade our software too.. Selling
upgrades and new features in software is what makes us money. If a customer
buys it and wants to use it for 15 years, that's fine, but we only make
money on that initial sale and then support contracts. I'd rather sell them
better software with more features every few years plus the support
contracts.
All valid points. But, usually business changes dictate that software be
updated and enhanced regardless of the OS or programming language status.
That's where we make most of our money. We service clients with volatile
business climates. They always need a change for something.
You did it for C++, and you can do it for classic Visual Basic......the
question is will you? Or, will you continue to walk away from the
largest army of programmers the world has ever seen......the people that
made you great?
Don't compare C++ to Visual Basic.
(awww crap! One of *those*.....)
Speaking of going away, I am setting up my Novell Linux box and MAC today
to do more thorough testing of REALbasic. Looks like fun. At least I
won't have to worry about Microsoft abandoning me if I finally choose the
MAC/Linux/REALbasic route. (Go to www.realbasic.com for your FREE copy
of REALbasic 5.5 standard until April 15, 2005.)
There is one thing, and only one thing, that will get Microsoft's
attention. Mass defection to Linux/MAC and a different programming
language. They have forgotten that the customer is always right. And,
only something big will drive that point home for them.
Although that sounds quite radical, it is no more radical than the change
that classic Visual Basic developers already have to go through with
Microsoft. And, you will at least be the partial master of your own
destiny then.....not a gnat to be swatted by the monopolistic hand of
Microsoft.
So, let me get this straight... You would rather spend your time and your
customer's money by downgrading them to real basic, than upgrading them to
a .Net language?
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I consider creating applications
that link everything into a single executable (as opposed to a framework
that may or may not be "patched") a more stable solution - therefore an
UPgrade. I consider being able to service my clients needs on Windows, MAC
or Linux another advantage. I consider the added ability to write code for
any Windows, MAC or Linux customer good for my company - as it expands our
potential client base to those desktops and increasingly includes more
goverments and school systems around the globe.
In all, I'd say that I consider true safety from DLL Hell (or Patch Hell),
an increased customer base, the ability to adjust to a changing desktop
market and the ability to assist our customers in choosing the best
desktop/server environments for them an UPgrade.
Especially when that company is really small in comparison to Microsoft?
Microsoft's size is one of the disadvantages of doing business with them.
No longer do Microsoft customers call the shots. Microsoft is doing
anything it damn well pleases....just because it can.
Real Software has to listen to it's customers. And, (as a potential
customer) I like that.
I don't know of any customers that like being told what to do by the company
they are doing business with. What would happen if you told one of your
customers that you were going to change their technologies even though they
didn't want you to? You could even assure them that it's in their best
interest. But, I doubt you'd be around much longer.
However, Microsoft pulls this off. How?
It's two-fold. Microsoft doesn;t have to convince business. They convince
programmers that they have a new and improved thingy that is "the new big
thing" in programming. Developers make their living developing. So, in
attempt to keep stay on top (thus keeping an income stream going) they rush
to adopt the latest from Microsoft. Then, the devlopers try and convince
their bosses and clients that they jsut have to get "the new big thing" or
they will be left in the dust.
Microsoft uses fear to sell their products.
Does a business really need the very latest from Microsoft to compete?
Rarely.
Hmm... If I were your customer, I'd be pissed and running from you.
You'd never be my customer. We screen better than that. We only take
clients that we know we can make happy. Fortunately, in the last 2.5 years
we've only had to turn away 3 clients.
And, it's much cheaper than the Microsoft solutions. Only $89.95 for a
COMPLETE desktop in Novell Linux (SUSE) 9.2 Professional. That includes
Open Office, free email clients, free IM clients, free photo editing
clients......really everything you need for day-to-day operations in most
businesses. Contrast that to XP Professional at $279.99 (for a new
install) and Office Professional 2003 at $499.99 and the $89.95 option is
at least worth a test drive.
The $780 for basic daily activities with a Microsoft desktop is more than
the hardware needed to run it......twice as much as the hardware for a
simple business workstation. And, for what? So we can say we work on a
Windows desktop? Who gives a rat's ass what desktop is in place as long
as I can accomplish my daily job of making more, cheaper and better
widgets to sell.
You get what you pay for.
You sure do. Viruses, unstable IDEs, intentinal breakig of backwards
compatability and a forced march to deposit more money into Microsoft;s
$50,000,000,000 cash pile.
I think the cost is too high.
Most company's don't get paid because they are using Microsoft
products.....they get paid to deliver goods and services, and their
clients really don't care what OS or desktop the company uses internally.
Come to think of it.....neither do the workers.
Really? What market are you in? In ours, it matters. In fact, some IT
departments kicked us out before we switched to VB because they didn't
want non-Microsoft products in house.
If we adopt REALbasic as our core tool. we wouldn;t be a good fit for those
companies. I can live with that.
Increasingly, governments, large companies and school systems are moving to
Linux. Maybe we're just a little ahead of the curve.
The same went for MySQL. Open source? No way.. They were having none of
that....
And, that's fine. We are not a one-size-fits-all software shop.
And the workers want to get their job done. If they can't, they get fired.
Right. It's your job to make sure they can get that job done. Usually,
though, if they can't get their job done because of the software, ot would
be you gettig fired......wouldn't it?
It should be. It's your job to get your customers the best solution for
them. IT may be Windows. It may be Mac, It may be Linux. They look to us
to know and guide them in this decision. That's what we get paid for.
I would never suggest an operating system that would slow production or harm
productivity. That would hurt them and our reputation. I'd rather not have
the job at all, and recommend them to another shop that can help them.
Try putting a linux desktop in an manufacturing environment. It won't
last. I've seen it happen.
Every business and situation is different.
So, who does care (besides Microsoft, of course)?
I personally don't really care what happens to VB6 at this point. I've
started to upgrade my skills from it to VB.Net, because I saw the need.
Good. You should do what makes you happy.
My customers need more advanced features and better support for newer
technologies.
Interesting. I have yet to get the customer that cares what technology I
use to write their applications. They just want to be able to compete and
share info with other businesses as inexpensively as possible.
I can do that and stay with Microsoft by moving everything to VB.Net, or
even C# if I wanted to.
REALbasic is not for everybody. I wish you well with Microsoft
technologies. I am just looking at this from my point of view and what is
needed to satisfy the real estate companies, home builders and attorney's
offices that I support.
I look at this as an opportunity, not a hinderance.
IMHO, it is simply an opportunity for Microsoft to pad their pockets. I was
doing fine before .Net, and I'll do fine after it. But,I have to make the
best call that I can for the future.
That doesn't include willful breaking of backwards comparability.
Jim Hubbard
Jim Hubbard wrote: You get what you pay for.
You sure do. Viruses, unstable IDEs, intentinal breakig of backwards
compatability and a forced march to deposit more money into Microsoft;s
$50,000,000,000 cash pile.
I think the cost is too high.
If you think this doesn't happen on Linux, you are wrong. I've even seen
this at home. It's also mostly why you only see binary packages
available for certain linux distros and versions... They change just
about every new version that is out.. Hence the reason you have to
recompile with just about every upgrade for software you download,
unless you are lucky enough to run the most popular distro. It's the
same thing with every OS you look at. Does a lot of the older Mac
software run on OS X? Some do.. but not all.. I also seem to remember a
lot of instability on the initial release of OS X. I also see a lot of
instability in Linux. I do a lot of C++ coding on Linux.. Trust me.. The
free IDEs available are not as stable as you think.
Increasingly, governments, large companies and school systems are moving to
Linux. Maybe we're just a little ahead of the curve.
You must be.. We also deal with government recreational facilities and
school districts, and none of them have had Linux so far. But hey, every
state could be different, I guess...
And, that's fine. We are not a one-size-fits-all software shop.
But I thought that was your goal in switching to realbasic?????
IMHO, it is simply an opportunity for Microsoft to pad their pockets. I was
doing fine before .Net, and I'll do fine after it. But,I have to make the
best call that I can for the future.
That doesn't include willful breaking of backwards comparability.
Ever hear of Visual DataFlex? It's a programming language by DataAccess
corporation.. It's pretty good. Very easy to use. Seperates all the
business logic from the presentation logic. It works really well.
Smaller company, huge community support, they listen to their
developers. They also break backwards compatibility all the time, leave
features out that developers want, charge license fees for software you
sell to customers. The list goes on and on... You will see this with
EVERY company you deal with. Just because Microsoft makes millions a
day, doesn't make them the bad guy, it just made them the bigger target
for people that like to complain that the "man" is coming down on them.
You will see it with all of them... It just takes time.
--
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
in article gU******************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com, Aaron Smith at th**********@smithcentral.net wrote on 8/4/05 1:35 pm: It's the same thing with every OS you look at. Does a lot of the older Mac
software run on OS X?
Yes. I still have to see one which doesn't.
Some do..
Some??????
but not all..
Which ones?
I also seem to remember a
lot of instability on the initial release of OS X. I also see a lot of
instability in Linux. I do a lot of C++ coding on Linux.. Trust me.. The
free IDEs available are not as stable as you think.
Trust is earned, not given away.
Might be me but your remarks don't particularly inspire trust.
Markus
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:57:20 -0500, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote:
¤ > It's all about choice. While we may not use more than one language we do
¤ > have a choice. We also have
¤ > a choice with respect to other features, such as the development of
¤ > components for distributed
¤ > applications and shared code libraries, the development of web
¤ > applications and services - choices
¤ > notably absent from REALBasic.
¤
¤ You're right. Those things are absent right now. But, it is something the
¤ REALbasic team is working on.
¤
The problem is that they're trying to catch up to Classic Visual Basic. They can't touch .NET.
¤ >
¤ > While touting the advantage of a multi-platform development tool I think
¤ > it's also important to note
¤ > that this feature is not particularly significant with respect to demand.
¤
¤ While still far behind Windows, the demand for Linux is growing by leaps and
¤ bounds....if I may....
¤
Well that's what some folks having been saying for the last five years. You would have thought by
now that Linux would have passed up Windows by now. ;-)
¤ It's like the adoption of Firefox in place of IE. Firefox is making great
¤ strides in the browser market, with no signs of stalling. People will adopt
¤ the best technology for their enterprise, whether that is MAC, Windows or
¤ Linux.
¤
Don't get me started on the Firefox issue. As market share increases it becomes a much bigger target
to hackers and those looking to exploit security holes. If probably won't help that MS is now
working on an updated version of IE.
¤ The adoption of Linux will happen sooner than you think, in more places than
¤ you think. There are things in the works right now that will make Linux the
¤ premier desktop of small and mid-sized businesses worldwide. Add them to
¤ the governments making the switch, and you have yourself a little
¤ revolution.
¤
They way Linux has been hyped over the last several years I would have expected a significantly
higher adoption rate. Problem is there's literally no money to be made in this market in comparison
to the Windows market so quality applications lag behind. In addition, there's simply too many user
interfaces and variations for this OS so standardization becomes virtually impossible.
¤ >The cost to support
¤ > multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.
¤
¤ Again, you are right.
¤
¤ In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly. This, for
¤ the most part, negated any potential gains from supporting Linux or MAC
¤ operating systems.
¤
¤ But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software. Just click
¤ and run on a different OS. There is no additional development required.
¤ Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your app
¤ on and click "Build".
¤
¤ REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected.
¤ Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier than
¤ that.
Unfortunately not all operating systems support the same level of features so there is almost always
a trade-off - another reason why companies spend little time developing their applications for
multiple platforms.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:13:35 -0400, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote:
¤ > ¤ You're right. Those things are absent right now. But, it is something
¤ > the
¤ > ¤ REALbasic team is working on.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > The problem is that they're trying to catch up to Classic Visual Basic.
¤ > They can't touch .NET.
¤
¤ Actually, they aren't playing catch-up to Classic VB at all. From what I
¤ understand, REALbasic has always been object oriented (something even VB6
¤ didn't fully acheive). They are trying to capitalize on a vacuum left by
¤ Microsoft abandoning the "task oriented" developers by adding features that
¤ make classic Visual Basic programmers feel more at home in the REALbasic
¤ environment. They are also following up with what Microsoft has proven to
¤ be a winning formula with classic Visual Basic. Those are just smart
¤ business practices.
¤
Hmmm...I don't think you compared the features of Classic to REALBasic very closely. RealBasic may
have full OO support but you can't create any ActiveX components.
Talk to some of the other Classic VB MVPs to see if they believe REALBasic measures up to Classic.
<snip>
¤ With VB.Net 2005, Microsoft is getting closer to the olde classic Visual
¤ Basic "task oriented" way of doing things. I am actually impressed with
¤ what I have seen of VB.Net 2005 so far. But there is still a ways to go to
¤ get it back to a tool that "task oriented" developers can feel comfortable
¤ (i.e. not stupid or overwhelmed) with.
¤
¤ And, my greatest issue is still the conversion of old Visual Basic 6
¤ code. I'll bet my company that if Microsoft were to make VB.Net 2005 truly
¤ "click and upgrade" classic Visual Basic 6 code that ALL of the petition
¤ issues would just go away.
¤
Pipe dream. Microsoft can't simply wave a magic wand in order to make all code upgrade able. Some
features are gone, some have been changed according to requirements of the .NET framework. They may
be able to bring back some features but those that have changed will not be reverted.
¤ > Don't get me started on the Firefox issue. As market share increases it
¤ > becomes a much bigger target
¤ > to hackers and those looking to exploit security holes. If probably won't
¤ > help that MS is now
¤ > working on an updated version of IE.
¤
¤ I was only pointing out that people are not as adverse to change as you
¤ might think. They will change when they see (either real or perceived)
¤ benefits of doing so.
¤
You mean like, "the grass is always greener on the other side"?
¤ > ¤ In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly. This,
¤ > for
¤ > ¤ the most part, negated any potential gains from supporting Linux or MAC
¤ > ¤ operating systems.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software. Just
¤ > click
¤ > ¤ and run on a different OS. There is no additional development required.
¤ > ¤ Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your
¤ > app
¤ > ¤ on and click "Build".
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected.
¤ > ¤ Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier than
¤ > ¤ that.
¤ >
¤ > Unfortunately not all operating systems support the same level of features
¤ > so there is almost always
¤ > a trade-off - another reason why companies spend little time developing
¤ > their applications for
¤ > multiple platforms.
¤
¤ In REALbasic, all core components work on all OSs. (Jon....correct me here
¤ if I'm wrong please).
If developers only used core language components that might be true. But how many actually develop
applications that don't implement extensions of the operating system? What about database
components? What about third-party controls? What about the operating system APIs?
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
"Paul Clement" <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
news:c7********************************@4ax.com... On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:13:35 -0400, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please>
wrote:
¤ > ¤ You're right. Those things are absent right now. But, it is
something
¤ > the
¤ > ¤ REALbasic team is working on.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > The problem is that they're trying to catch up to Classic Visual
Basic.
¤ > They can't touch .NET.
¤
¤ Actually, they aren't playing catch-up to Classic VB at all. From what
I
¤ understand, REALbasic has always been object oriented (something even
VB6
¤ didn't fully acheive). They are trying to capitalize on a vacuum left
by
¤ Microsoft abandoning the "task oriented" developers by adding features
that
¤ make classic Visual Basic programmers feel more at home in the REALbasic
¤ environment. They are also following up with what Microsoft has proven
to
¤ be a winning formula with classic Visual Basic. Those are just smart
¤ business practices.
¤
Hmmm...I don't think you compared the features of Classic to REALBasic
very closely. RealBasic may
have full OO support but you can't create any ActiveX components.
Talk to some of the other Classic VB MVPs to see if they believe REALBasic
measures up to Classic.
If you'll recall.....I said, "Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do.
Don't expect it to be anything
except REALbasic."
The syntax is similar to VB, the interface is similar to VB and the IDE is a
basic drag-and-drop component-oriented IDE. All of these things will make
REALbasic feeal very familiar to Visual Basic programmers. But, REALbasic
is REALbasic.....not Visual Basic.
<snip>
¤ With VB.Net 2005, Microsoft is getting closer to the olde classic
Visual
¤ Basic "task oriented" way of doing things. I am actually impressed with
¤ what I have seen of VB.Net 2005 so far. But there is still a ways to go
to
¤ get it back to a tool that "task oriented" developers can feel
comfortable
¤ (i.e. not stupid or overwhelmed) with.
¤
¤ And, my greatest issue is still the conversion of old Visual Basic 6
¤ code. I'll bet my company that if Microsoft were to make VB.Net 2005
truly
¤ "click and upgrade" classic Visual Basic 6 code that ALL of the petition
¤ issues would just go away.
¤
Pipe dream. Microsoft can't simply wave a magic wand in order to make all
code upgrade able.
No. But they couldwave a programming team and make it so.
It's a choice. Microsoft is choosing to abandon classic Visual Basic 6, the
mind-boggling amount of code written in classic Visual Basic and the users
that trusted Microsoft enough to use it. It's a very bad choice....but a
choice nonetheless.
Some
features are gone, some have been changed according to requirements of the
.NET framework.
The requirements of the .Net framework have nothing to do with allowing
unmanaged classic Visual Basic applications to be supported from the Visual
Studio .Net IDE. Never have I seen any Microsoft employee give any valid
technical reason that classic Visual Basic code could not be run as
"unmanaged code".
Remember that classic Visual Basic uses a runtime. This runtime contains
the code that actually makes a classic Visual Basic program work. So, why
not include the runtime code to run unmanaged classic Visual Basic code?
All I keep hearing is that there are some sort of technical reasons that
this can't be done......but nobody (not even you) can cite even one of those
phantom reasons.
I suspect that there are not real technical reasons behind the decision.
The continual insistance that there are such reasons, without producing even
one of them, leads me to believe this is nothing more than a propaganda
technique in which Microsoft says something often enough and people begin to
take it as fact.....when, in fact, there are no facts to support the
argument at all.
If you know of any hard facts as to why 1) the Visual Studio .Net IDE could
not support classic Visual Basic applications or 2) and hard facts as to why
the small code contained in the classic Visual Basic runtime could not be
integrated to run unmanaged Visual Basic code from inside an intermediate
language like VB.Net....please shaer it with us.
They may
be able to bring back some features but those that have changed will not
be reverted.
I agree. Microsoft is not likely to change their stance, no matter how
wrong it may be for their customers. This is why we need a valid
alternative to Windows, .Net and the forced marches of Microsoft.
¤ > Don't get me started on the Firefox issue. As market share increases
it
¤ > becomes a much bigger target
¤ > to hackers and those looking to exploit security holes. If probably
won't
¤ > help that MS is now
¤ > working on an updated version of IE.
¤
¤ I was only pointing out that people are not as adverse to change as you
¤ might think. They will change when they see (either real or perceived)
¤ benefits of doing so.
¤
You mean like, "the grass is always greener on the other side"?
Sometimes the grass really is greener. (Not that there won;t be the
occassional "cow patty"....)
¤ > ¤ In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly.
This,
¤ > for
¤ > ¤ the most part, negated any potential gains from supporting Linux or
MAC
¤ > ¤ operating systems.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software. Just
¤ > click
¤ > ¤ and run on a different OS. There is no additional development
required.
¤ > ¤ Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute
your
¤ > app
¤ > ¤ on and click "Build".
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have
selected.
¤ > ¤ Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier
than
¤ > ¤ that.
¤ >
¤ > Unfortunately not all operating systems support the same level of
features
¤ > so there is almost always
¤ > a trade-off - another reason why companies spend little time
developing
¤ > their applications for
¤ > multiple platforms.
¤
¤ In REALbasic, all core components work on all OSs. (Jon....correct me
here
¤ if I'm wrong please).
If developers only used core language components that might be true. But
how many actually develop
applications that don't implement extensions of the operating system?
I'm new to REALbasic.....so, I wouldn't know at this time.
What about database
components?
A simple database is built in.
What about third-party controls?
With REALbasic 2005, it is easier to write 3rd party controls using
REALbasic. That makes them essentially core components.
What about the operating system APIs?
Good question! This one had me worried, until I found this......
#If TargetBoolean [Then]
//OS specific code
[#Else]
//Other OS-specific code
[#ElseIf TargetBoolean]
//Other OS-specific code for this target platform
#Endif
TargetBoolean can be TargetMacOS, TargetWin32 or TargetLinux. This way you
can take advantage of OS-specific APIs without screwing up the app on other
OSs.
Example
The following example assigns values to the (user-defined) Separator
property of the App class in its Open event handler. It will be used to
specify full pathnames that are correct on both Macintosh, Linux, and
Windows.
#If TargetMacOS Separator=":" #ElseIf TargetWin32 Separator="" #ElseIf
TargetLinux Separator="/" #Endif
Jim Hubbard
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:33:21 -0500, james wrote: "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message news:25udnSWM8-ZUA8jfRVn-> These links were chosen to show that the
adoption of Linus is not new and is not slowing. If you'd like more let me know.
<Snipped links>
It's like the adoption of Firefox in place of IE. Firefox is making great strides in the browser market, with no signs of
stalling. People will adopt the best technology for their enterprise, whether that is MAC, Windows or Linux.
The adoption of Linux will happen sooner than you think, in more places than you think. There are things in the works right
now that will make Linux the premier desktop of small and mid-sized businesses worldwide. Add them to the governments making
the switch, and you have yourself a little revolution.
Don't worry....it'll be fun. I promise.
The cost to support
multiple platforms is typically a deterrent.
Again, you are right.
In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly. This, for the most part, negated any potential gains from
supporting Linux or MAC operating systems.
But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software. Just click and run on a different OS. There is no additional
development required. Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute your app on and click "Build".
REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have selected. Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be
any easier than that.
Jim Hubbard
Jim, you do know that several of those links you posted are the same article don't you? And some are almost 2 years old. And
if you read those articles, it clearly states that Linux is not any cheaper than Windows from a support standpoint.
As for RealBasic and cross-platform support, have you tested it? Having downloaded the Free standard version, I can say that in
the case of a simple app, that RB will compile to Linux (haven't tested on Mac).
But, not being able to build a complicated app and fully test it in Linux (due to the 5 minute time limit in the Standard
edition) I cannot say for sure how well Linux or Mac OS is supported. So, if you are like me and have not used the PRO version
of RB, I would think it would not be a good idea to make a broad statement on how easy to develop a cross-platform application
using RB is. You cannot (or should I say , I cannot) fully stress test an application in 5 minutes in a different OS than it
was developed in and be certain that you/I will not have problems.
My final questions to you is why are you spending so much time on bashing Microsoft over all this? If you have decided to
migrate to Linux and leave Microsoft products behind, why are you still posting on all these different newsgroups? Wouldn't it
be better to get up to speed on RealBasic and Linux?
Just a few thoughts and my .02 and worth exactly what you paid for them...........
james
James,
I've ported one of our VB apps to RealBasic in the interest of making it
more portable. The idea was to not require the VB runtimes to be installed,
and this works very well. The final exe is a bit large, but still not as
large as the VB exe and it's runtimes together. Anyway, just for fun I
compiled the program to Linux, and loandbehold, the thing ran, and for the
most part worked. That's where the kicker is, it didn't work completely as
it did in Windows. The StaticText and Caption on controls would no longer
fit in the respective field sizes. I understand that there are font
differences and such between different OS's but it does require adjustment,
my point here. As well a control array in a GroupBox didn't function
properly, again some more tweaking. Now this was simply a matter of
compiling code that works in Windows and compiling to Linux, with no
further consideration, so I'm sure more work needed to be done, but again,
my point is that it is not as simple as just setting some compiler options.
I really kinda like RealBasic though, just wish it were'nt so Mac oriented,
although I do realize that's it's roots.
--
HK
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:13:11 -0400, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote:
¤
¤ "Paul Clement" <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote in message
¤ news:c7********************************@4ax.com...
¤ > On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:13:35 -0400, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please>
¤ > wrote:
¤ > Hmmm...I don't think you compared the features of Classic to REALBasic
¤ > very closely. RealBasic may
¤ > have full OO support but you can't create any ActiveX components.
¤ >
¤ > Talk to some of the other Classic VB MVPs to see if they believe REALBasic
¤ > measures up to Classic.
¤
¤ If you'll recall.....I said, "Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do.
¤ Don't expect it to be anything
¤ except REALbasic."
¤
¤ The syntax is similar to VB, the interface is similar to VB and the IDE is a
¤ basic drag-and-drop component-oriented IDE. All of these things will make
¤ REALbasic feeal very familiar to Visual Basic programmers. But, REALbasic
¤ is REALbasic.....not Visual Basic.
¤
Certainly not with respect to features, which will significantly impair code migration.
¤ > ¤ With VB.Net 2005, Microsoft is getting closer to the olde classic
¤ > Visual
¤ > ¤ Basic "task oriented" way of doing things. I am actually impressed with
¤ > ¤ what I have seen of VB.Net 2005 so far. But there is still a ways to go
¤ > to
¤ > ¤ get it back to a tool that "task oriented" developers can feel
¤ > comfortable
¤ > ¤ (i.e. not stupid or overwhelmed) with.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ And, my greatest issue is still the conversion of old Visual Basic 6
¤ > ¤ code. I'll bet my company that if Microsoft were to make VB.Net 2005
¤ > truly
¤ > ¤ "click and upgrade" classic Visual Basic 6 code that ALL of the petition
¤ > ¤ issues would just go away.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > Pipe dream. Microsoft can't simply wave a magic wand in order to make all
¤ > code upgrade able.
¤
¤ No. But they couldwave a programming team and make it so.
¤
Based upon my knowledge of both versions I'm going to have to disagree.
¤ It's a choice. Microsoft is choosing to abandon classic Visual Basic 6, the
¤ mind-boggling amount of code written in classic Visual Basic and the users
¤ that trusted Microsoft enough to use it. It's a very bad choice....but a
¤ choice nonetheless.
¤
Previous versions of software are ultimately abandoned. While we can debate the ease or difficulty
of the migration as a result of the changes, it doesn't really change the process.
While there are those who believe that Visual Basic.NET is a completely different language, and
product, in order to justify the continued development of Visual Basic 6.0, I'm not buying it one
bit.
¤ >Some
¤ > features are gone, some have been changed according to requirements of the
¤ > .NET framework.
¤
¤ The requirements of the .Net framework have nothing to do with allowing
¤ unmanaged classic Visual Basic applications to be supported from the Visual
¤ Studio .Net IDE. Never have I seen any Microsoft employee give any valid
¤ technical reason that classic Visual Basic code could not be run as
¤ "unmanaged code".
¤
How do you co mingle managed and unmanaged code in the same environment? The .NET and Visual Basic
IDE environments are fundamentally different with respect to how code is compiled, debugged and
executed. In any event, what would be the point of bringing Classic Visual Basic into the .NET
environment if standard (not COM) based unmanaged code cannot interoperate with managed code?
¤ Remember that classic Visual Basic uses a runtime. This runtime contains
¤ the code that actually makes a classic Visual Basic program work. So, why
¤ not include the runtime code to run unmanaged classic Visual Basic code?
¤
¤ All I keep hearing is that there are some sort of technical reasons that
¤ this can't be done......but nobody (not even you) can cite even one of those
¤ phantom reasons.
¤
Well if I remember correctly Classic Visual Basic applications actually execute from within the
process of the IDE during development. .NET applications do not. Are you saying that you want to
modify the .NET IDE to provide for both a managed and unmanaged code environment?
¤ I suspect that there are not real technical reasons behind the decision.
¤ The continual insistance that there are such reasons, without producing even
¤ one of them, leads me to believe this is nothing more than a propaganda
¤ technique in which Microsoft says something often enough and people begin to
¤ take it as fact.....when, in fact, there are no facts to support the
¤ argument at all.
¤
I have yet to hear any cogent explanations as to how it can be accomplished within a reasonable time
frame.
¤ If you know of any hard facts as to why 1) the Visual Studio .Net IDE could
¤ not support classic Visual Basic applications or 2) and hard facts as to why
¤ the small code contained in the classic Visual Basic runtime could not be
¤ integrated to run unmanaged Visual Basic code from inside an intermediate
¤ language like VB.Net....please shaer it with us.
Yes, because it would take several years to implement and couldn't be justified from a business
perspective.
¤ >They may
¤ > be able to bring back some features but those that have changed will not
¤ > be reverted.
¤
¤ I agree. Microsoft is not likely to change their stance, no matter how
¤ wrong it may be for their customers. This is why we need a valid
¤ alternative to Windows, .Net and the forced marches of Microsoft.
¤
There are many customers who support Microsoft's stance and do not believe it to be wrong.
¤ >
¤ > ¤ > Don't get me started on the Firefox issue. As market share increases
¤ > it
¤ > ¤ > becomes a much bigger target
¤ > ¤ > to hackers and those looking to exploit security holes. If probably
¤ > won't
¤ > ¤ > help that MS is now
¤ > ¤ > working on an updated version of IE.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ I was only pointing out that people are not as adverse to change as you
¤ > ¤ might think. They will change when they see (either real or perceived)
¤ > ¤ benefits of doing so.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > You mean like, "the grass is always greener on the other side"?
¤
¤ Sometimes the grass really is greener. (Not that there won;t be the
¤ occassional "cow patty"....)
¤
¤ >
¤ > ¤ > ¤ In the past, developing for different platforms has been costly.
¤ > This,
¤ > ¤ > for
¤ > ¤ > ¤ the most part, negated any potential gains from supporting Linux or
¤ > MAC
¤ > ¤ > ¤ operating systems.
¤ > ¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ > ¤ But, REALbasic makes this as easy as recompiling the software. Just
¤ > ¤ > click
¤ > ¤ > ¤ and run on a different OS. There is no additional development
¤ > required.
¤ > ¤ > ¤ Just select the checkboxes of the platforms you want to distribute
¤ > your
¤ > ¤ > app
¤ > ¤ > ¤ on and click "Build".
¤ > ¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ > ¤ REALbasic builds your app for all of the platforms you have
¤ > selected.
¤ > ¤ > ¤ Developing cross-platform desktop applications can't be any easier
¤ > than
¤ > ¤ > ¤ that.
¤ > ¤ >
¤ > ¤ > Unfortunately not all operating systems support the same level of
¤ > features
¤ > ¤ > so there is almost always
¤ > ¤ > a trade-off - another reason why companies spend little time
¤ > developing
¤ > ¤ > their applications for
¤ > ¤ > multiple platforms.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ In REALbasic, all core components work on all OSs. (Jon....correct me
¤ > here
¤ > ¤ if I'm wrong please).
¤ >
¤ > If developers only used core language components that might be true. But
¤ > how many actually develop
¤ > applications that don't implement extensions of the operating system?
¤
¤ I'm new to REALbasic.....so, I wouldn't know at this time.
¤
The issue isn't specific to REALBasic. It's simply a matter of fact.
¤ > What about database
¤ > components?
¤
¤ A simple database is built in.
¤
Well lets say I have an application that uses an Access database. How do I get this to work on
multiple platforms?
¤ > What about third-party controls?
¤
¤ With REALbasic 2005, it is easier to write 3rd party controls using
¤ REALbasic. That makes them essentially core components.
¤
I want to use the components (ActiveX controls) I've already invested in. How do I resolve this
issue? Are you saying I have to rewrite these in REALBasic?
¤ > What about the operating system APIs?
¤
¤ Good question! This one had me worried, until I found this......
¤
¤ #If TargetBoolean [Then]
¤ //OS specific code
¤
¤ [#Else]
¤
¤ //Other OS-specific code
¤
¤ [#ElseIf TargetBoolean]
¤
¤ //Other OS-specific code for this target platform
¤
¤ #Endif
But what if there is no equivalent functionality in the other OS? Am I SOL?
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
"H-Man" <I-****@Spam.sucks> wrote in message news:sd*****************************@40tude.net... James,
I've ported one of our VB apps to RealBasic in the interest of making it
more portable. The idea was to not require the VB runtimes to be installed,
and this works very well. The final exe is a bit large, but still not as
large as the VB exe and it's runtimes together. Anyway, just for fun I
compiled the program to Linux, and loandbehold, the thing ran, and for the
most part worked. That's where the kicker is, it didn't work completely as
it did in Windows. The StaticText and Caption on controls would no longer
fit in the respective field sizes. I understand that there are font
differences and such between different OS's but it does require adjustment,
my point here. As well a control array in a GroupBox didn't function
properly, again some more tweaking. Now this was simply a matter of
compiling code that works in Windows and compiling to Linux, with no
further consideration, so I'm sure more work needed to be done, but again,
my point is that it is not as simple as just setting some compiler options.
I really kinda like RealBasic though, just wish it were'nt so Mac oriented,
although I do realize that's it's roots.
--
HK
Thanks for the info. I think you could probably make those changes for the different OS's the same way
Jim did in his example for File I/O using the #TargetBoolean to have the compiler output the correct options for the targeted
OS. I have not done much testing with the Standard Version that I downloaded as I feel the 5 minute run time for Linux & Mac OS
are too short for me to fully evaluate and test anything. Sure, something as simple as a Form's Caption should show up right
away, but, things much deeper in an application may not show up as quickly or be as obvious. I guess I will wait and see if I
manage to be in the top 100 people who manage to get others to follow their personalized links. If that happens, then I might be
able to do some better tests with the PRO version or even RB 2005.
Good luck and I hope that RB is all you hope it is and need.
james
Only a few days left to Download and get a FREE License for Real Basic Standard Edition!!!
Offer expires April 15, 2005 .
Go here for your copy: http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=CMZJCYDC ¤ If you'll recall.....I said, "Now, REALbasic still has some growing to
do.
¤ Don't expect it to be anything
¤ except REALbasic."
¤
¤ The syntax is similar to VB, the interface is similar to VB and the IDE
is a
¤ basic drag-and-drop component-oriented IDE. All of these things will
make
¤ REALbasic feeal very familiar to Visual Basic programmers. But,
REALbasic
¤ is REALbasic.....not Visual Basic.
¤
Certainly not with respect to features, which will significantly impair
code migration.
REALbasic still has some growing to do. Fortunately, it has seen a great
spike in downloads and usage lately....with more 3rd party component vendors
signing on.
It seems I'm not the only one that likes to be able to write OS independent
applications.
¤ > ¤ With VB.Net 2005, Microsoft is getting closer to the olde
classic
¤ > Visual
¤ > ¤ Basic "task oriented" way of doing things. I am actually impressed
with
¤ > ¤ what I have seen of VB.Net 2005 so far. But there is still a ways
to go
¤ > to
¤ > ¤ get it back to a tool that "task oriented" developers can feel
¤ > comfortable
¤ > ¤ (i.e. not stupid or overwhelmed) with.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ And, my greatest issue is still the conversion of old Visual
Basic 6
¤ > ¤ code. I'll bet my company that if Microsoft were to make VB.Net
2005
¤ > truly
¤ > ¤ "click and upgrade" classic Visual Basic 6 code that ALL of the
petition
¤ > ¤ issues would just go away.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > Pipe dream. Microsoft can't simply wave a magic wand in order to make
all
¤ > code upgrade able.
¤
¤ No. But they couldwave a programming team and make it so.
¤
Based upon my knowledge of both versions I'm going to have to disagree.
AGAIN! I PLEAD WITH YOU TO SHARE YOUR INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF VISUAL BASIC
THAT MAKES IT TECHNICALLY NOT FEASABLE TO SUPPORT CLASSIC VISUAL BASIC AS
UNMANAGED CODE IN THE SAME WAY THAT UNMANAGED C++ CODE IS SUPPORTED.
¤ It's a choice. Microsoft is choosing to abandon classic Visual Basic 6,
the
¤ mind-boggling amount of code written in classic Visual Basic and the
users
¤ that trusted Microsoft enough to use it. It's a very bad choice....but
a
¤ choice nonetheless.
¤
Previous versions of software are ultimately abandoned. While we can
debate the ease or difficulty
of the migration as a result of the changes, it doesn't really change the
process.
While there are those who believe that Visual Basic.NET is a completely
different language, and
product, in order to justify the continued development of Visual Basic
6.0, I'm not buying it one
bit.
Really? So, you can run unaltered VB6 code from large, enterprise
applications in VB.Net? Please share......we'd all like to do that.
¤ >Some
¤ > features are gone, some have been changed according to requirements of
the
¤ > .NET framework.
¤
¤ The requirements of the .Net framework have nothing to do with allowing
¤ unmanaged classic Visual Basic applications to be supported from the
Visual
¤ Studio .Net IDE. Never have I seen any Microsoft employee give any
valid
¤ technical reason that classic Visual Basic code could not be run as
¤ "unmanaged code".
¤
How do you co mingle managed and unmanaged code in the same environment?
The same way Microsoft did it for C++.
The .NET and Visual Basic
IDE environments are fundamentally different with respect to how code is
compiled, debugged and
executed.
The same goes for C++. This is a BS argument.
In any event, what would be the point of bringing Classic Visual Basic
into the .NET
environment if standard (not COM) based unmanaged code cannot interoperate
with managed code?
I think (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that there's a little
thing called interop that allows just such things to take place in VB.Net -
it just wasn't taken far enough. They wanted to spend more time on a
language adopted by MILLIONS FEWER programmers - simply because the internal
programmers were calling the shots.
This is a classic example of the lunatics running the asylum.
¤ Remember that classic Visual Basic uses a runtime. This runtime
contains
¤ the code that actually makes a classic Visual Basic program work. So,
why
¤ not include the runtime code to run unmanaged classic Visual Basic code?
¤
¤ All I keep hearing is that there are some sort of technical reasons that
¤ this can't be done......but nobody (not even you) can cite even one of
those
¤ phantom reasons.
¤
Well if I remember correctly Classic Visual Basic applications actually
execute from within the
process of the IDE during development. .NET applications do not. Are you
saying that you want to
modify the .NET IDE to provide for both a managed and unmanaged code
environment?
Yes. Just like Microsoft did for C++.
¤ I suspect that there are not real technical reasons behind the decision.
¤ The continual insistance that there are such reasons, without producing
even
¤ one of them, leads me to believe this is nothing more than a propaganda
¤ technique in which Microsoft says something often enough and people
begin to
¤ take it as fact.....when, in fact, there are no facts to support the
¤ argument at all.
¤
I have yet to hear any cogent explanations as to how it can be
accomplished within a reasonable time
frame.
And, I have yet to hear any technical reason that prevents the inclusion of
unmanaged Visual Basic code.....JUST LIKE MICROSOFT DID WITH C++.
You are beginning to bore me with this unsubstantiated assumption of the
phantom roadblocks that clearly do not exist. Put up....or move on.
¤ If you know of any hard facts as to why 1) the Visual Studio .Net IDE
could
¤ not support classic Visual Basic applications or 2) and hard facts as to
why
¤ the small code contained in the classic Visual Basic runtime could not
be
¤ integrated to run unmanaged Visual Basic code from inside an
intermediate
¤ language like VB.Net....please shaer it with us.
Yes, because it would take several years to implement and couldn't be
justified from a business
perspective.
On what do you base these assumptions? It didn't take that long, or cost
too much, to do it for C++.
¤ > If developers only used core language components that might be true.
But
¤ > how many actually develop
¤ > applications that don't implement extensions of the operating system?
¤
¤ I'm new to REALbasic.....so, I wouldn't know at this time.
¤
The issue isn't specific to REALBasic. It's simply a matter of fact.
They can still do so in REALbasic. However, if the code is core to the
program (as opposed to a "nice feature" that can be added for a specific OS
without adversely affecting the core functionality of the project) they will
confine that application to the specific OS for which they write the hooks.
I want to use the components (ActiveX controls) I've already invested in.
How do I resolve this
issue? Are you saying I have to rewrite these in REALBasic?
Completely understandable. This is the same reason we want to keep classic
VB viable - to preserve our investments.
I believe that ActiveX controls CAN be used from REALbasic. You'd have to
ask them if you need more specifics.
¤ > What about the operating system APIs?
¤
¤ Good question! This one had me worried, until I found this......
¤
¤ #If TargetBoolean [Then]
¤ //OS specific code
¤
¤ [#Else]
¤
¤ //Other OS-specific code
¤
¤ [#ElseIf TargetBoolean]
¤
¤ //Other OS-specific code for this target platform
¤
¤ #Endif
But what if there is no equivalent functionality in the other OS? Am I
SOL?
What do you think? They are not replacing the operating systems.
If a car doesn't have wings it can't fly.
Jim Hubbard
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:00:41 -0400, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote:
¤ > ¤ >
¤ > ¤ > Pipe dream. Microsoft can't simply wave a magic wand in order to make
¤ > all
¤ > ¤ > code upgrade able.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ No. But they couldwave a programming team and make it so.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > Based upon my knowledge of both versions I'm going to have to disagree.
¤
¤ AGAIN! I PLEAD WITH YOU TO SHARE YOUR INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF VISUAL BASIC
¤ THAT MAKES IT TECHNICALLY NOT FEASABLE TO SUPPORT CLASSIC VISUAL BASIC AS
¤ UNMANAGED CODE IN THE SAME WAY THAT UNMANAGED C++ CODE IS SUPPORTED.
Doesn't work that way my friend. The environments for Classic Visual Basic and C++ are quite a bit
different. Besides C++ uses managed extensions to inter operate with .NET. Do you really believe
that managed extensions for Classic Visual Basic is even the slightest bit feasible considering the
baggage it caries along with it?
In any event you're claiming this can be done feasibly but have offered little if any technical
information to back your statement.
¤ > ¤ It's a choice. Microsoft is choosing to abandon classic Visual Basic 6,
¤ > the
¤ > ¤ mind-boggling amount of code written in classic Visual Basic and the
¤ > users
¤ > ¤ that trusted Microsoft enough to use it. It's a very bad choice....but
¤ > a
¤ > ¤ choice nonetheless.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > Previous versions of software are ultimately abandoned. While we can
¤ > debate the ease or difficulty
¤ > of the migration as a result of the changes, it doesn't really change the
¤ > process.
¤ >
¤ > While there are those who believe that Visual Basic.NET is a completely
¤ > different language, and
¤ > product, in order to justify the continued development of Visual Basic
¤ > 6.0, I'm not buying it one
¤ > bit.
¤
¤ Really? So, you can run unaltered VB6 code from large, enterprise
¤ applications in VB.Net? Please share......we'd all like to do that.
Who said that? Not me. Do you believe Visual Basic.NET is a completely different language? If so,
then explain why it shares a very high percentage of the same language components and syntax with
Classic Visual Basic?
¤ > ¤ >Some
¤ > ¤ > features are gone, some have been changed according to requirements of
¤ > the
¤ > ¤ > .NET framework.
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ The requirements of the .Net framework have nothing to do with allowing
¤ > ¤ unmanaged classic Visual Basic applications to be supported from the
¤ > Visual
¤ > ¤ Studio .Net IDE. Never have I seen any Microsoft employee give any
¤ > valid
¤ > ¤ technical reason that classic Visual Basic code could not be run as
¤ > ¤ "unmanaged code".
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > How do you co mingle managed and unmanaged code in the same environment?
¤
¤ The same way Microsoft did it for C++.
¤
What is it about the C++ and Visual Basic 6.0 development environments that indicate to you that
they operate under the same implementation?
¤ >The .NET and Visual Basic
¤ > IDE environments are fundamentally different with respect to how code is
¤ > compiled, debugged and
¤ > executed.
¤
¤ The same goes for C++. This is a BS argument.
¤
Oh so it's not true. Please share your wealth of technical knowledge because so far all you're
saying is, "it can be done", "they did it with C++ so they can do it with VB", etc. etc. etc.
¤ > In any event, what would be the point of bringing Classic Visual Basic
¤ > into the .NET
¤ > environment if standard (not COM) based unmanaged code cannot interoperate
¤ > with managed code?
¤
¤ I think (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that there's a little
¤ thing called interop that allows just such things to take place in VB.Net -
¤ it just wasn't taken far enough. They wanted to spend more time on a
¤ language adopted by MILLIONS FEWER programmers - simply because the internal
¤ programmers were calling the shots.
¤
¤ This is a classic example of the lunatics running the asylum.
¤
As I mentioned it's COM interop (RCW or CCW). Microsoft would have to devise some method other than
an interop assembly in order to generate the dynamic bridge between managed and unmanaged code.
¤ >
¤ > ¤ Remember that classic Visual Basic uses a runtime. This runtime
¤ > contains
¤ > ¤ the code that actually makes a classic Visual Basic program work. So,
¤ > why
¤ > ¤ not include the runtime code to run unmanaged classic Visual Basic code?
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ All I keep hearing is that there are some sort of technical reasons that
¤ > ¤ this can't be done......but nobody (not even you) can cite even one of
¤ > those
¤ > ¤ phantom reasons.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > Well if I remember correctly Classic Visual Basic applications actually
¤ > execute from within the
¤ > process of the IDE during development. .NET applications do not. Are you
¤ > saying that you want to
¤ > modify the .NET IDE to provide for both a managed and unmanaged code
¤ > environment?
¤
¤ Yes. Just like Microsoft did for C++.
¤
How? They're not the same.
¤ > ¤ I suspect that there are not real technical reasons behind the decision.
¤ > ¤ The continual insistance that there are such reasons, without producing
¤ > even
¤ > ¤ one of them, leads me to believe this is nothing more than a propaganda
¤ > ¤ technique in which Microsoft says something often enough and people
¤ > begin to
¤ > ¤ take it as fact.....when, in fact, there are no facts to support the
¤ > ¤ argument at all.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > I have yet to hear any cogent explanations as to how it can be
¤ > accomplished within a reasonable time
¤ > frame.
¤
¤ And, I have yet to hear any technical reason that prevents the inclusion of
¤ unmanaged Visual Basic code.....JUST LIKE MICROSOFT DID WITH C++.
¤
¤ You are beginning to bore me with this unsubstantiated assumption of the
¤ phantom roadblocks that clearly do not exist. Put up....or move on.
¤
That's my line and your repeated assertions are an exercise in futility. If you have no technical
evidence as to how it can be done within a reasonable time frame then your claim that it can is
baseless. It's not incumbent upon me to disprove something that has yet to be proven or
demonstrated. That's nonsense. You're not the first one to assume facts not in evidence and then
demand that I disprove them - but it was a nice try. ;-)
I have no reason to accept your claims at their face value.
¤ >
¤ > ¤ If you know of any hard facts as to why 1) the Visual Studio .Net IDE
¤ > could
¤ > ¤ not support classic Visual Basic applications or 2) and hard facts as to
¤ > why
¤ > ¤ the small code contained in the classic Visual Basic runtime could not
¤ > be
¤ > ¤ integrated to run unmanaged Visual Basic code from inside an
¤ > intermediate
¤ > ¤ language like VB.Net....please shaer it with us.
¤ >
¤ > Yes, because it would take several years to implement and couldn't be
¤ > justified from a business
¤ > perspective.
¤
¤ On what do you base these assumptions? It didn't take that long, or cost
¤ too much, to do it for C++.
¤
Well I guess if C++ and Visual Basic 6.0 were the same you would have a winner. For the last time,
they're not and I don't know why you believe that they would require the same implementation under
..NET.
¤ > ¤ > If developers only used core language components that might be true.
¤ > But
¤ > ¤ > how many actually develop
¤ > ¤ > applications that don't implement extensions of the operating system?
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ I'm new to REALbasic.....so, I wouldn't know at this time.
¤ > ¤
¤ >
¤ > The issue isn't specific to REALBasic. It's simply a matter of fact.
¤
¤ They can still do so in REALbasic. However, if the code is core to the
¤ program (as opposed to a "nice feature" that can be added for a specific OS
¤ without adversely affecting the core functionality of the project) they will
¤ confine that application to the specific OS for which they write the hooks.
¤
Core functionality often involves operating system specific functionality. That's why cross-platform
development is often problematic. It has nothing to do with the language or development environment
you use - it's an issue with the concept with respect to operating system implementations.
¤ > I want to use the components (ActiveX controls) I've already invested in.
¤ > How do I resolve this
¤ > issue? Are you saying I have to rewrite these in REALBasic?
¤
¤ Completely understandable. This is the same reason we want to keep classic
¤ VB viable - to preserve our investments.
¤
¤ I believe that ActiveX controls CAN be used from REALbasic. You'd have to
¤ ask them if you need more specifics.
¤ >
¤ > ¤ > What about the operating system APIs?
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ Good question! This one had me worried, until I found this......
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ #If TargetBoolean [Then]
¤ > ¤ //OS specific code
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ [#Else]
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ //Other OS-specific code
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ [#ElseIf TargetBoolean]
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ //Other OS-specific code for this target platform
¤ > ¤
¤ > ¤ #Endif
¤ >
¤ > But what if there is no equivalent functionality in the other OS? Am I
¤ > SOL?
¤
¤ What do you think? They are not replacing the operating systems.
¤
¤ If a car doesn't have wings it can't fly.
Hmm...OK so much for the cross-platform implementation feature. ;-)
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
In article <or********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:6K********************@giganews.com... It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen),
but now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized
business.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...9ca99eb0e7c328
Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.
Jim Hubbard
I have made no attempts to hide my displeasure at the way Microsoft has
treated the VB6 developers - as you will notice in the Microsoft.public.vb
newsgroup postings.
And, with the current pricing structure of MSDN and rising costs of
Microsoft's desktop software, I truly believe we need a valid alternative to
Microsoft developer tools. Currently, I am looking into REALbasic
(www.REALbasic.com) as just such an alternative.
Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do. Don't expect it to be anything
except REALbasic.
If you are a classic Visual Basic developer (pre-VB.Net), you will find the
interface and syntax very familiar. You will be able to upgrade your VB6
apps better than Microsoft's transition tool to VB.Net. And, the coming
2005 interface (60 days until release) has a much enhanced UI (screenshots
at http://www.realsoftware.com/demo15/).
REALbasic 5.5 is even FREE to former Visual Basic developers and they will
receive a discount on REALbasic 2005 when it gets released in 60 days (or
less). Just sign up here -
http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/vb6/index.php - BEFORE APRIL 15, 2005.
Although those reasons are all good enough to at least take a look at
REALbasic, the true value of REALbasic, for developers AND end users, is
freedom of choice with the OS. REALbasic applications are truly
cross-platform and will run on MAC, Linux or Windows machines. This means
that, as prices continue to climb for Microsoft MSDN subscriptions (almost
$10,000 for the top MSDN subscription) Microsoft OSs and Microsoft software
(like $499 for Office 2003 Pro) you and your customers have the option of
choosing a less expensive OS like MAC, a supported (but way less expensive
than XP) Linux OS like Novell's Linux desktop, Red Hat Workstation or even a
FREE OS like one of the hundreds of free Linux distros.
Microsoft has shown that they no longer value (or even listen to) their
customers. They will be the next IBM.....decimating the empire that they
have built by ignoring customer needs and pricing themselves out of Windows
development.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft IS pricing themselves out of the
software market by pricing the small and mid-sized business out of Windows
development.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting that the ability for small and mid-sized
shops to do their own development is a large part of what has made Microsoft
the largest software company in the world. Its what drew small companies to
Windows - the ability to develop their own relatively inexpensive software
solutions in-house. Not to mention the millions of developers that used
Windows tools to develop and sell their own software.
And, while there are certainly alternatives other than REALbasic (Mono +
Linux, C++ + MAC, Java, Borland's Delphi, etc.) None of them offer the
platform dependence that REALbasic does........nope, not even JAVA.
You need to do your reasearch.... Mono runs on way more platfroms than
REALbasic. And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
operational, though should be by the end of this year.
Here are the current supported OS's for Mono:
Linux, Windows (2K and up), OSX, BSD, Solaris
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
In article <ON********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Ron Ruble" <ra******@att.net> wrote in message
news:19*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... Jim Hubbard wrote: "Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
why use the IDE at all? the framework and compilers are free, so there is
really nothing to complain about and get all biased about when you can do
it all for free anyways.. there are 3rd party IDE's out there for the
.NET framework that are free also. Why don't you look into them if you
dont want to pay for microsoft's IDE. Just because it's visual studio
doesn't mean you need visual studio to create programs for .NET. just get
the .NET framework SDK and you have all you need, then pick up a free IDE
if you need a graphical experience also.
Sure you need the .Net IDE to develop for .NET....well, if you want to be
competitive with other .Net development shops.
The 3rd party IDEs are always behind (sometimes WAAAY behind) Microsoft's
development tools in features because they don't innovate - they copy.
That puts you at a disadvantage among other .Net framework developers.
That may not always be true. With sufficient numbers of
developers jumping ship, that adds a significant incentive
to make better 3rd party IDEs faster. Also, while those
who -copy- MS tend to be inferior, there are a number
of third parties who offer superior features that use
a different idea of how to do things.
I wish this were the case. But, it seems that no other company has put 2
and 2 together yet.....
Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients
that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money and
the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
applications.
You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE), Mandrake,
even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie and
say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft. The thing
they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual Basic
was for Microsoft).
You really have no idea what your talking about... The fact is, I can
be pretty productive using Mono+C#+Glade# on my Gentoo linux box. And
once they get mbas fully up to speed, then I can use Mono+VB.NET+Glade#.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
In article <h6********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Clement wrote: On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:57:20 -0500, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote:
<snip>
¤ While still far behind Windows, the demand for Linux is growing by leaps and
¤ bounds....if I may....
¤
Well that's what some folks having been saying for the last five years. You would have thought by
now that Linux would have passed up Windows by now. ;-)
Do you read the news much? Linux is being adopted... Not so much on the
desktop (though that is happening) - but on the server side it is
growing pretty darn fast.
¤ It's like the adoption of Firefox in place of IE. Firefox is making great
¤ strides in the browser market, with no signs of stalling. People will adopt
¤ the best technology for their enterprise, whether that is MAC, Windows or
¤ Linux.
¤
Don't get me started on the Firefox issue. As market share increases it becomes a much bigger target
to hackers and those looking to exploit security holes. If probably won't help that MS is now
working on an updated version of IE.
I agree that Firefox is not as big a target at the moment... But, you
need to look at the fix rate as well:
http://www.tigertools.net/board/?topic=topic8&msg=7567
According to Brussels-based ScanIT, users of Microsoft's Internet
Explorer (IE) were "unsafe" 98 percent of the time during 2004, while
Mozilla users -- which would include those using Mozilla and Firefox
-- were "unsafe" only 15 percent of last year.
The fact is that Firefox IS more secure, not to mention it is just a
better browser. I have high hopes for IE7, but right now Firefox just
plain kicks IE's butt.
¤ The adoption of Linux will happen sooner than you think, in more places than
¤ you think. There are things in the works right now that will make Linux the
¤ premier desktop of small and mid-sized businesses worldwide. Add them to
¤ the governments making the switch, and you have yourself a little
¤ revolution.
¤
They way Linux has been hyped over the last several years I would have expected a significantly
higher adoption rate. Problem is there's literally no money to be made in this market in comparison
Tell that to Novell and IBM. Both major Linux players.
to the Windows market so quality applications lag behind.
Some do, some don't.
In addition, there's simply too many user
interfaces and variations for this OS so standardization becomes virtually impossible.
To be honest, I actually like having the choices. But, this makes no
sense really. It is quite simple for a distro maker to standardize on a
particluar interface, if they so choose.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:OC*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... In article <ON********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
<snip> Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients
that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money
and
the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
applications.
You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE),
Mandrake,
even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie and
say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft. The thing
they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual
Basic
was for Microsoft).
You really have no idea what your talking about... The fact is, I can
be pretty productive using Mono+C#+Glade# on my Gentoo linux box. And
once they get mbas fully up to speed, then I can use Mono+VB.NET+Glade#.
Tom,
I'm certain that you can be very productive in those languages. But the
point that I was trying to make is that most developers are "task oriented"
developers and not professional developers such as yourself.
In most cases, these task oriented developers have a main job that is
not programming, but they needed a quick way (without spending a large
amount of time learning a more complex programming language and without
learning about the internal workings of the IDE or framework) to create
applications to make their jobs easier.
Classic Visual Basic was the king of RAD, and fit this bill more than
any language in the world.. It made programmers of CEOs, mail clerks,
secretaries, attorneys......and so on. Because of the extreme ease of use,
the component architecture and the English-like syntax, classic Visual Basic
made developers out of more people than any other language in the world and
made Windows the champion of small businesses and task oriented developers
the world over.
Classic Visual Basic saved money in that small businesses did not have
to hire professional programmers to get applications that helped them
streamline their operations. And, as more businesses used classic Visual
Basic, 3rd party developers cropped up to deliver components to make it even
easier to use. This resulted in more adoption of the classic Visual Basic
and Windows platform.
In VB.Net, Microsoft has lost the RAD edge that task oriented developers
loved (and actually needed). The VB.Net books that I have read (all 54 of
them) are even more of an affront to the task oriented developer. The vast
majority of task oriented developers simply don't want to be professional
programmers. If they did, they'd stop being attorney's or mail clerks or
whatever and devote themselves to it full time. For the most part, they
just want a simple IDE to make applications to make making a living easier.
For the majority of them, C#, Mono and related languages are not nearly
as easy to use and learn as languages like Visual Basic and REALbasic. This
is the reason I suggest that classic Visual Basic developers that feel
slighted by Microsoft take a look at REALbasic.
REALbasic offers the ability to use a much less expensive desktop (like
Linspire, SUSE or even Red Hat) with applications that interact with
Microsoft Office and offers the developer the chance to develop on MAC,
Linux or Windows and distribute their apps to all 3 platforms.
The REALbasic/Linux platform will not be for everyone. But, for task
oriented developers, developers that would like to target all 3 platforms
from a single set of source code and developers and small businesses looking
for a more cost effective solution than Microsoft's ridiculous pricing of
its products.....REALbasic is worth a look.
A look is even free. They can get a free copy at http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=GVVDPQFY .
Jim Hubbard
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:eW*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... In article <or********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:6K********************@giganews.com... It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen),
but now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized
business.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...9ca99eb0e7c328
Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.
Jim Hubbard
I have made no attempts to hide my displeasure at the way Microsoft has
treated the VB6 developers - as you will notice in the
Microsoft.public.vb
newsgroup postings.
And, with the current pricing structure of MSDN and rising costs of
Microsoft's desktop software, I truly believe we need a valid alternative
to
Microsoft developer tools. Currently, I am looking into REALbasic
(www.REALbasic.com) as just such an alternative.
Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do. Don't expect it to be
anything
except REALbasic.
If you are a classic Visual Basic developer (pre-VB.Net), you will find
the
interface and syntax very familiar. You will be able to upgrade your VB6
apps better than Microsoft's transition tool to VB.Net. And, the coming
2005 interface (60 days until release) has a much enhanced UI
(screenshots
at http://www.realsoftware.com/demo15/).
REALbasic 5.5 is even FREE to former Visual Basic developers and they
will
receive a discount on REALbasic 2005 when it gets released in 60 days (or
less). Just sign up here -
http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/vb6/index.php - BEFORE APRIL 15,
2005.
Although those reasons are all good enough to at least take a look at
REALbasic, the true value of REALbasic, for developers AND end users, is
freedom of choice with the OS. REALbasic applications are truly
cross-platform and will run on MAC, Linux or Windows machines. This
means
that, as prices continue to climb for Microsoft MSDN subscriptions
(almost
$10,000 for the top MSDN subscription) Microsoft OSs and Microsoft
software
(like $499 for Office 2003 Pro) you and your customers have the option of
choosing a less expensive OS like MAC, a supported (but way less
expensive
than XP) Linux OS like Novell's Linux desktop, Red Hat Workstation or
even a
FREE OS like one of the hundreds of free Linux distros.
Microsoft has shown that they no longer value (or even listen to) their
customers. They will be the next IBM.....decimating the empire that they
have built by ignoring customer needs and pricing themselves out of
Windows
development.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft IS pricing themselves out of the
software market by pricing the small and mid-sized business out of
Windows
development.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting that the ability for small and mid-sized
shops to do their own development is a large part of what has made
Microsoft
the largest software company in the world. Its what drew small companies
to
Windows - the ability to develop their own relatively inexpensive
software
solutions in-house. Not to mention the millions of developers that used
Windows tools to develop and sell their own software.
And, while there are certainly alternatives other than REALbasic (Mono +
Linux, C++ + MAC, Java, Borland's Delphi, etc.) None of them offer the
platform dependence that REALbasic does........nope, not even JAVA.
You need to do your reasearch.... Mono runs on way more platfroms than
REALbasic.
Are you saying that Mono puts out exe's for all supported platforms with a
single set of source code and a single compile like REALbasic does?
I haven't really been attracted to Mono because of the syntax. I just don't
like it. And, I don;t like the idea of always playing catch=up with
Microsoft. Mono should make a clean break with Microsoft and
innovate.....but, then it may lose it's ability to play well with .Net.
Fortunately, REALbasic isn't caught in that trap andcan move in any
direction that their developers need without really worrying too much about
how Microsoft does things.
And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
operational, though should be by the end of this year.
I'd love to take a look at it. Hopefully it gets more back to the RAD IDE
that wa classic Visual Basic.
Here are the current supported OS's for Mono:
Linux, Windows (2K and up), OSX, BSD, Solaris
The only real concern I have is that it is basically unsupported. As a
business owner and having to deal with ISO9000 issues, most executives that
I deal with demand accountablity in the products that they adopt and feel
that this is missing with Mono. It's the same reason that companies adopt
RedHat instead of their own version of Linux. They need a support team
ready when they need help.
Who on the Mono team can we call if we need help today with a project?
REALbasic has a great support team.
Jim Hubbard
In article <EL********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:OC*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... In article <ON********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
<snip>
Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2 ingredients
that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money
and
the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
applications.
You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE),
Mandrake,
even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie and
say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft. The thing
they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual
Basic
was for Microsoft).
You really have no idea what your talking about... The fact is, I can
be pretty productive using Mono+C#+Glade# on my Gentoo linux box. And
once they get mbas fully up to speed, then I can use Mono+VB.NET+Glade#.
Tom,
I'm certain that you can be very productive in those languages. But the
point that I was trying to make is that most developers are "task oriented"
developers and not professional developers such as yourself.
Ah, so were not talking about proffesional hackers... I guess I missed
that. For that, I agree you are right. I know of nothing in linux that
is as easy to use as VB.CLASSIC.
I apologize for my misunderstanding.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
In article <9P********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:eW*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... In article <or********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:6K********************@giganews.com...
It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen),
but now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a small or mid-sized
business.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...9ca99eb0e7c328
Damn! To be that powerful....to be so rich and smug....... It must be
nice.
Jim Hubbard
I have made no attempts to hide my displeasure at the way Microsoft has
treated the VB6 developers - as you will notice in the
Microsoft.public.vb
newsgroup postings.
And, with the current pricing structure of MSDN and rising costs of
Microsoft's desktop software, I truly believe we need a valid alternative
to
Microsoft developer tools. Currently, I am looking into REALbasic
(www.REALbasic.com) as just such an alternative.
Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do. Don't expect it to be
anything
except REALbasic.
If you are a classic Visual Basic developer (pre-VB.Net), you will find
the
interface and syntax very familiar. You will be able to upgrade your VB6
apps better than Microsoft's transition tool to VB.Net. And, the coming
2005 interface (60 days until release) has a much enhanced UI
(screenshots
at http://www.realsoftware.com/demo15/).
REALbasic 5.5 is even FREE to former Visual Basic developers and they
will
receive a discount on REALbasic 2005 when it gets released in 60 days (or
less). Just sign up here -
http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/vb6/index.php - BEFORE APRIL 15,
2005.
Although those reasons are all good enough to at least take a look at
REALbasic, the true value of REALbasic, for developers AND end users, is
freedom of choice with the OS. REALbasic applications are truly
cross-platform and will run on MAC, Linux or Windows machines. This
means
that, as prices continue to climb for Microsoft MSDN subscriptions
(almost
$10,000 for the top MSDN subscription) Microsoft OSs and Microsoft
software
(like $499 for Office 2003 Pro) you and your customers have the option of
choosing a less expensive OS like MAC, a supported (but way less
expensive
than XP) Linux OS like Novell's Linux desktop, Red Hat Workstation or
even a
FREE OS like one of the hundreds of free Linux distros.
Microsoft has shown that they no longer value (or even listen to) their
customers. They will be the next IBM.....decimating the empire that they
have built by ignoring customer needs and pricing themselves out of
Windows
development.
Make no mistake about it, Microsoft IS pricing themselves out of the
software market by pricing the small and mid-sized business out of
Windows
development.
Microsoft seems to be forgetting that the ability for small and mid-sized
shops to do their own development is a large part of what has made
Microsoft
the largest software company in the world. Its what drew small companies
to
Windows - the ability to develop their own relatively inexpensive
software
solutions in-house. Not to mention the millions of developers that used
Windows tools to develop and sell their own software.
And, while there are certainly alternatives other than REALbasic (Mono +
Linux, C++ + MAC, Java, Borland's Delphi, etc.) None of them offer the
platform dependence that REALbasic does........nope, not even JAVA.
You need to do your reasearch.... Mono runs on way more platfroms than
REALbasic.
Are you saying that Mono puts out exe's for all supported platforms with a
single set of source code and a single compile like REALbasic does?
Yes... In fact, for the most part an exe compiled in VS will run on
linux under mono and a exe compiled with mono will run on windows under
..net. There are exceptions - some classes and namespaces that haven't
been fully implemented yet (most notably, system.windows.forms - which
is also comming at the end of this year).
I haven't really been attracted to Mono because of the syntax. I just don't
like it.
Well, it's just C# and to be honest, I like C# better anyway :) But, if
that's not to your liking - the full VB.NET syntax will be available.
There is already a Java implementation (IKVM), and IronPython runs on
..NET and Mono. There are several language choices on Mono as well as
..NET.
And, I don;t like the idea of always playing catch=up with
Microsoft. Mono should make a clean break with Microsoft and
innovate.....but, then it may lose it's ability to play well with .Net.
Actually, Mono does innovate. They have tones of libraries of their
own.
Fortunately, REALbasic isn't caught in that trap andcan move in any
direction that their developers need without really worrying too much about
how Microsoft does things.
Same with Mono - since their primary goal is not actually compatability
with .NET. That is just a side affect of implementing the ECMA/ISO
standard. The primary goal of Mono is to make Linux development easier.
Compatability, is a secondary goal - primarily to make Linux a more
attractive platform for ISV's. If you look at the way Mono is deployed,
it is done in 3 stacks... The mono core that contains all of the
ECMA/ISO stuff (this is pretty much complete), the mono specific stuff
(libaries that are distributed with mono and not with .NET), and the ms
compatability stack. The ms stack contains stuff like,
System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc.
And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
operational, though should be by the end of this year.
I'd love to take a look at it. Hopefully it gets more back to the RAD IDE
that wa classic Visual Basic.
Mono, like .NET is not tied to an IDE... Yes, there is a Mono specific
IDE in the works (MonoDevelop) but it is pretty rough around the edges
at this point....
Here are the current supported OS's for Mono:
Linux, Windows (2K and up), OSX, BSD, Solaris
The only real concern I have is that it is basically unsupported.
Not really true. Mono is supported by Novell. You can purchase support
and technical consulting if you so desire/need it.
As a
business owner and having to deal with ISO9000 issues, most executives that
I deal with demand accountablity in the products that they adopt and feel
that this is missing with Mono. It's the same reason that companies adopt
RedHat instead of their own version of Linux. They need a support team
ready when they need help.
SuSE is begining to ship with Mono as part of the default package as of
9.3 I believe. SuSE is a paid for distribution from Novell. So, you
can use Mono and have support. In fact, many of the new Novell Linux
products are based on Mono.
Who on the Mono team can we call if we need help today with a project?
You call Novell. Or you do like you do with VB - you get on the mailing
list, and ask away :)
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... In article <EL********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:OC*************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... In article <ON********************@giganews.com>, Jim Hubbard wrote:
<snip>
Sun, Borland, Novell......all of them are missing the main 2
ingredients
that are absolutley neccessary to give Microsoft a run for their money
and
the people of the world a real choice in desktop operating systems and
applications.
You have to have an affordable desktop....Linspire, Novell (SUSE),
Mandrake,
even the MAC OS (only $199 for 5 licenses - and you don't have to lie
and
say you're a student) are all more affordable than Microsoft. The
thing
they are missing is an easy way to develop applications (like Visual
Basic
was for Microsoft).
You really have no idea what your talking about... The fact is, I can
be pretty productive using Mono+C#+Glade# on my Gentoo linux box. And
once they get mbas fully up to speed, then I can use Mono+VB.NET+Glade#.
Tom,
I'm certain that you can be very productive in those languages. But
the
point that I was trying to make is that most developers are "task
oriented"
developers and not professional developers such as yourself.
Ah, so were not talking about proffesional hackers... I guess I missed
that. For that, I agree you are right. I know of nothing in linux that
is as easy to use as VB.CLASSIC.
I apologize for my misunderstanding.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
No problem. I may have not been clear enough in my postings, and maybe this
will help clear things up.
Thanks for the questions.
Jim Hubbard
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:OI**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
<snip> And, while there are certainly alternatives other than REALbasic (Mono
+
Linux, C++ + MAC, Java, Borland's Delphi, etc.) None of them offer the
platform dependence that REALbasic does........nope, not even JAVA.
You need to do your reasearch.... Mono runs on way more platfroms than
REALbasic.
Are you saying that Mono puts out exe's for all supported platforms with
a
single set of source code and a single compile like REALbasic does?
Yes... In fact, for the most part an exe compiled in VS will run on
linux under mono and a exe compiled with mono will run on windows under
.net. There are exceptions - some classes and namespaces that haven't
been fully implemented yet (most notably, system.windows.forms - which
is also comming at the end of this year).
That's good to know. Thanks for pointing that out.
I haven't really been attracted to Mono because of the syntax. I just
don't
like it.
Well, it's just C# and to be honest, I like C# better anyway :) But, if
that's not to your liking - the full VB.NET syntax will be available.
There is already a Java implementation (IKVM), and IronPython runs on
.NET and Mono. There are several language choices on Mono as well as
.NET.
I've been waiting on the VB.Net version. But, seeing as it has been so
long, and that the release will be far from the RAD environment that I loved
with classic Visual Basic, I think it will be quite some time before the
Mono's VB.Net version is a viable option for me.
And, I don;t like the idea of always playing catch=up with
Microsoft. Mono should make a clean break with Microsoft and
innovate.....but, then it may lose it's ability to play well with .Net.
Actually, Mono does innovate. They have tones of libraries of their
own.
Also a good thing. Developers should be in control of where apps go.....not
Microsoft - or any single company.
Fortunately, REALbasic isn't caught in that trap andcan move in any
direction that their developers need without really worrying too much
about
how Microsoft does things.
Same with Mono - since their primary goal is not actually compatability
with .NET.
Again...something I did not know....cool.
That is just a side affect of implementing the ECMA/ISO
standard. The primary goal of Mono is to make Linux development easier.
Compatability, is a secondary goal - primarily to make Linux a more
attractive platform for ISV's.
I'm all for this!
If you look at the way Mono is deployed,
it is done in 3 stacks... The mono core that contains all of the
ECMA/ISO stuff (this is pretty much complete), the mono specific stuff
(libaries that are distributed with mono and not with .NET), and the ms
compatability stack. The ms stack contains stuff like,
System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc.
And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
operational, though should be by the end of this year.
I'd love to take a look at it. Hopefully it gets more back to the RAD
IDE
that wa classic Visual Basic.
Mono, like .NET is not tied to an IDE... Yes, there is a Mono specific
IDE in the works (MonoDevelop) but it is pretty rough around the edges
at this point....
I guess this is a major sticking point for me. I want (and even need) the
RAD IDE of a classic Visual Basic-like language to keep my productivity at
its current levels.
VB.Net 2005 is heading back in that direction some, and I am glad. But,
I'll reserve final judgement on that implementation until I see the final
product.
Here are the current supported OS's for Mono:
Linux, Windows (2K and up), OSX, BSD, Solaris
The only real concern I have is that it is basically unsupported.
Not really true. Mono is supported by Novell. You can purchase support
and technical consulting if you so desire/need it.
I knew that they were a major backer, but I did not know that they sold
support for Mono.
As a
business owner and having to deal with ISO9000 issues, most executives
that
I deal with demand accountablity in the products that they adopt and feel
that this is missing with Mono. It's the same reason that companies
adopt
RedHat instead of their own version of Linux. They need a support team
ready when they need help.
SuSE is begining to ship with Mono as part of the default package as of
9.3 I believe. SuSE is a paid for distribution from Novell. So, you
can use Mono and have support. In fact, many of the new Novell Linux
products are based on Mono.
I just bought 9.2 Pro a couple of weeks ago and have enjoyed playing with it
(although I wish it would run under VMWare - they only support version 9.1
at this time).
Who on the Mono team can we call if we need help today with a project?
You call Novell. Or you do like you do with VB - you get on the mailing
list, and ask away :)
You know....I'm actually working on a little product to make that
easier......
Thanks for enlightening me on some Mono facts that I was ignorant
concerning.
Jim Hubbard
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... Ah, so were not talking about proffesional hackers... I guess I missed
that. For that, I agree you are right. I know of nothing in linux that
is as easy to use as VB.CLASSIC.
I apologize for my misunderstanding.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Tom, there is a Linux-only, VB Like language, with a pretty nice IDE called Gambas.
Here's the link: http://gambas.sourceforge.net/ (free)
I have messed with it and it seems to be prettty nice and easy to use. I have built a couple of test apps in Linux using Gambas
and it ran just fine in both KDE & Gnome.
(Just thought you might be interested in another alternitive)
james
On 2005-04-14, james <jj*******@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... Ah, so were not talking about proffesional hackers... I guess I missed
that. For that, I agree you are right. I know of nothing in linux that
is as easy to use as VB.CLASSIC.
I apologize for my misunderstanding.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Tom, there is a Linux-only, VB Like language, with a pretty nice IDE called Gambas.
Here's the link: http://gambas.sourceforge.net/ (free)
I have messed with it and it seems to be prettty nice and easy to use. I have built a couple of test apps in Linux using Gambas
and it ran just fine in both KDE & Gnome.
(Just thought you might be interested in another alternitive)
james
James - thanks. I'll have to check that out...
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
On 2005-04-14, Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
"Tom Shelton" <to*@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in message
news:OI**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
<snip>
> And, while there are certainly alternatives other than REALbasic (Mono
> +
> Linux, C++ + MAC, Java, Borland's Delphi, etc.) None of them offer the
> platform dependence that REALbasic does........nope, not even JAVA.
>
You need to do your reasearch.... Mono runs on way more platfroms than
REALbasic.
Are you saying that Mono puts out exe's for all supported platforms with
a
single set of source code and a single compile like REALbasic does?
Yes... In fact, for the most part an exe compiled in VS will run on
linux under mono and a exe compiled with mono will run on windows under
.net. There are exceptions - some classes and namespaces that haven't
been fully implemented yet (most notably, system.windows.forms - which
is also comming at the end of this year).
That's good to know. Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem. I haven't really been attracted to Mono because of the syntax. I just
don't
like it.
Well, it's just C# and to be honest, I like C# better anyway :) But, if
that's not to your liking - the full VB.NET syntax will be available.
There is already a Java implementation (IKVM), and IronPython runs on
.NET and Mono. There are several language choices on Mono as well as
.NET.
I've been waiting on the VB.Net version. But, seeing as it has been so
long, and that the release will be far from the RAD environment that I loved
with classic Visual Basic, I think it will be quite some time before the
Mono's VB.Net version is a viable option for me.
Here's the things... If you stick to .NET stuff, then you can actually
deploy VB.NET programs to mono right now. At that point, it's just IL.
It's really just the mbas compiler that is in need of some work :) And, I don;t like the idea of always playing catch=up with
Microsoft. Mono should make a clean break with Microsoft and
innovate.....but, then it may lose it's ability to play well with .Net.
Actually, Mono does innovate. They have tones of libraries of their
own.
Also a good thing. Developers should be in control of where apps go.....not
Microsoft - or any single company.
I agree. Fortunately, REALbasic isn't caught in that trap andcan move in any
direction that their developers need without really worrying too much
about
how Microsoft does things.
Same with Mono - since their primary goal is not actually compatability
with .NET.
Again...something I did not know....cool.
That is just a side affect of implementing the ECMA/ISO
standard. The primary goal of Mono is to make Linux development easier.
Compatability, is a secondary goal - primarily to make Linux a more
attractive platform for ISV's.
I'm all for this!
Me to. Don't get me wrong. I like and use MS products - but, I also
like and use Linux. It's nice to have something that will work on both. If you look at the way Mono is deployed,
it is done in 3 stacks... The mono core that contains all of the
ECMA/ISO stuff (this is pretty much complete), the mono specific stuff
(libaries that are distributed with mono and not with .NET), and the ms
compatability stack. The ms stack contains stuff like,
System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc.
And even supports VB.NET - though, that is still not fully
operational, though should be by the end of this year.
I'd love to take a look at it. Hopefully it gets more back to the RAD
IDE
that wa classic Visual Basic.
Mono, like .NET is not tied to an IDE... Yes, there is a Mono specific
IDE in the works (MonoDevelop) but it is pretty rough around the edges
at this point....
I guess this is a major sticking point for me. I want (and even need) the
RAD IDE of a classic Visual Basic-like language to keep my productivity at
its current levels.
VB.Net 2005 is heading back in that direction some, and I am glad. But,
I'll reserve final judgement on that implementation until I see the final
product.
Here are the current supported OS's for Mono:
Linux, Windows (2K and up), OSX, BSD, Solaris
The only real concern I have is that it is basically unsupported.
Not really true. Mono is supported by Novell. You can purchase support
and technical consulting if you so desire/need it.
I knew that they were a major backer, but I did not know that they sold
support for Mono.
For your enjoyment... http://mono-project.com/FAQ:_General...e_Mono_Project
Will Novell offer Mono commercially?
Novell will offer a commercial support and services for Mono. Mono
components are also available to be licensed commercially. For
licensing details, contact mo************@novell.com As a
business owner and having to deal with ISO9000 issues, most executives
that
I deal with demand accountablity in the products that they adopt and feel
that this is missing with Mono. It's the same reason that companies
adopt
RedHat instead of their own version of Linux. They need a support team
ready when they need help.
SuSE is begining to ship with Mono as part of the default package as of
9.3 I believe. SuSE is a paid for distribution from Novell. So, you
can use Mono and have support. In fact, many of the new Novell Linux
products are based on Mono.
I just bought 9.2 Pro a couple of weeks ago and have enjoyed playing with it
(although I wish it would run under VMWare - they only support version 9.1
at this time).
To be totally up front... I haven't been all that impressed with SuSE.
It's not that it's bad - I just don't like RPM based packaging. I have
really fallen in love with my Gentoo system and it's portage package
manager. Who on the Mono team can we call if we need help today with a project?
You call Novell. Or you do like you do with VB - you get on the mailing
list, and ask away :)
You know....I'm actually working on a little product to make that
easier......
Thanks for enlightening me on some Mono facts that I was ignorant
concerning.
No Prob. I'm a big mono fan.
--
Tom Shelton [MVP]
Jim Hubbard wrote: Tom,
I'm certain that you can be very productive in those languages. But the
point that I was trying to make is that most developers are "task oriented"
developers and not professional developers such as yourself.
In most cases, these task oriented developers have a main job that is
not programming, but they needed a quick way (without spending a large
amount of time learning a more complex programming language and without
learning about the internal workings of the IDE or framework) to create
applications to make their jobs easier.
Classic Visual Basic was the king of RAD, and fit this bill more than
any language in the world.. It made programmers of CEOs, mail clerks,
secretaries, attorneys......and so on. Because of the extreme ease of use,
the component architecture and the English-like syntax, classic Visual Basic
made developers out of more people than any other language in the world and
made Windows the champion of small businesses and task oriented developers
the world over.
Classic Visual Basic saved money in that small businesses did not have
to hire professional programmers to get applications that helped them
streamline their operations. And, as more businesses used classic Visual
Basic, 3rd party developers cropped up to deliver components to make it even
easier to use. This resulted in more adoption of the classic Visual Basic
and Windows platform.
Not to get all philisophical here... But, isn't this one of the biggest
problems that a lot of professional developers face? I'm not talking
about losing money to people who become simple programmers... I'm
talking about professional programmers having to always go back and fix
broken or misused code because a mail room clerk wrote a program that a
business now has to rely on, and that clerk did something wrong. I have
only run into this a few times in my career, but I have read countless
articles that pointed out the fact that classic VB created a ton of bad
code. It was these people that don't have the fundamental knowledge of
programming, or even computers, that created a ton of programs that ran,
but had problems and when they leave a company, now they are forced to
hire someone to rewrite it. It would have just been easier to have it
done professionally once instead of paying to have it written once
unprofessionally then pay someone twice as much to fix it.
In VB.Net, Microsoft has lost the RAD edge that task oriented developers
loved (and actually needed). The VB.Net books that I have read (all 54 of
them) are even more of an affront to the task oriented developer. The vast
majority of task oriented developers simply don't want to be professional
programmers. If they did, they'd stop being attorney's or mail clerks or
whatever and devote themselves to it full time. For the most part, they
just want a simple IDE to make applications to make making a living easier.
For the majority of them, C#, Mono and related languages are not nearly
as easy to use and learn as languages like Visual Basic and REALbasic. This
is the reason I suggest that classic Visual Basic developers that feel
slighted by Microsoft take a look at REALbasic.
REALbasic offers the ability to use a much less expensive desktop (like
Linspire, SUSE or even Red Hat) with applications that interact with
Microsoft Office and offers the developer the chance to develop on MAC,
Linux or Windows and distribute their apps to all 3 platforms.
The REALbasic/Linux platform will not be for everyone. But, for task
oriented developers, developers that would like to target all 3 platforms
from a single set of source code and developers and small businesses looking
for a more cost effective solution than Microsoft's ridiculous pricing of
its products.....REALbasic is worth a look.
A look is even free. They can get a free copy at
http://www.realbasic.com/vb6/index.php?id=GVVDPQFY .
Jim Hubbard
If real basic is so great for these "task oriented" developers, than why
are you even asking for VB.Com? If the programs they wrote were so
simple and a mail clerk could do it, then the switch to real basic would
be simple and they could do it with no problem. If there are other tools
out there that these people can use, then let them go use them.
--
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks.
Jim Hubbard wrote: Fortunately, REALbasic isn't caught in that trap andcan move in any
direction that their developers need without really worrying too much about
how Microsoft does things.
Careful with that. They are a business too. Just because they say they
listen to the developer doesn't always make that the case. I've seen,
and heard that before.
The only real concern I have is that it is basically unsupported. As a
business owner and having to deal with ISO9000 issues, most executives that
I deal with demand accountablity in the products that they adopt and feel
that this is missing with Mono. It's the same reason that companies adopt
RedHat instead of their own version of Linux. They need a support team
ready when they need help.
Who on the Mono team can we call if we need help today with a project?
Just like every other linux project that crops up, there is always
community support, just like what you get with Microsoft. And I'm sure a
ton of support companies will crop up once it starts to get adopted more.
REALbasic has a great support team.
So, if it's so great, why are we all still arguing? Why don't the people
that have a big problem with Microsoft dumping classic VB just switch to
real basic?
--
---
Aaron Smith
Remove -1- to E-Mail me. Spam Sucks. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Jim Hubbard |
last post by:
It seems that Microsoft not only does not need the classic Visual Basic
developer army (the largest army of developers the world has ever seen), but
now they don't need ANY Windows developer at a...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
| |
