By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
454,165 Members | 1,429 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 454,165 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Anyone tried REALbasic?

P: n/a
I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.

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

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

Just wondering if anyone else had tried it.

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

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
31 Replies


P: n/a
Go for it Jim.

If you switch to that then we won't have to put up with your disparaging
diatribes anymore.
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:18********************@giganews.com...
I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.

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

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

Just wondering if anyone else had tried it.

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

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #2

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

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:18********************@giganews.com...
I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.

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

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

Just wondering if anyone else had tried it.

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

Jim Hubbard

Nov 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
if you don't break something at some point you cant progress forward... and
microsoft does its best to maintain backward compatability through time..
it's not an easy task for any company... and write once and run anywhere has
always been BS because even in JAVA across platforms you have compatability
issues and things behaving differently
Nov 21 '05 #4

P: n/a

"Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
if you don't break something at some point you cant progress forward...
and microsoft does its best to maintain backward compatability through
time.. it's not an easy task for any company... and write once and run
anywhere has always been BS because even in JAVA across platforms you have
compatability issues and things behaving differently


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

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

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

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

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
Hi Jim,

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


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

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

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

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

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

HTH,
Gerald
Nov 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
> I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.


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

Markus

--

Dr. Markus Winter
OligoChecker 2.16.1 * manage oligos, check which ones are suitable for PCR
on a given sequence, run simulated PCR

A MacOS X version can be downloaded from

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

and a MacOS 8.5 or 9 version from

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

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

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/win/35458
Nov 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> schrieb:
I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.


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

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

Nov 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
"Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> schrieb:
if you don't break something at some point you cant progress forward...
and microsoft does its best to maintain backward compatability through
time..


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

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

Nov 21 '05 #9

P: n/a

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi***************@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:e4**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> schrieb:
I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.


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

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>


Thanks Herfried!

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

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #10

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

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

So if you need MacOs -> RB
if you only need Windows/Linux ->Delphi/Kylix
Nov 21 '05 #11

P: n/a
>
Seems like VB.Net could benefit from packing down to a single exe with no
dependencies outside the exe.


I haven't had any problems with just delivering an exe file generated by
VS.NET. The DotNetFramework is included with Windows XP and if a W2K box
auto-updates, it has it also. I haven't had the need to create an installer
or bundle any runtime files with an exe (other than 3rd party dll's). Of
course, I'm not creating huge enterprise level apps either.
Nov 21 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:00:14 -0500, "Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote:

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

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

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

Just wondering if anyone else had tried it.

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

Jim Hubbard


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

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

Is it in the same class as Visual Basic.NET? Not even close.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #13

P: n/a
Terry Olsen wrote:
Seems like VB.Net could benefit from packing down to a single exe with no
dependencies outside the exe.

The DotNetFramework is included with Windows XP


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

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

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com
Nov 21 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:46:45 -0500, Mitchell Vincent <mv******@newsgroup.nospam> wrote:

Terry Olsen wrote:
>>Seems like VB.Net could benefit from packing down to a single exe with no
>>dependencies outside the exe.
>
>
> The DotNetFramework is included with Windows XP
>

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

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

You are correct.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)
Nov 21 '05 #15

P: n/a
Jim Hubbard wrote:
"Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
if you don't break something at some point you cant progress forward...
and microsoft does its best to maintain backward compatability through
time.. it's not an easy task for any company... and write once and run
anywhere has always been BS because even in JAVA across platforms you have
compatability issues and things behaving differently

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

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

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

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

Jim Hubbard


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

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

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

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

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

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

So just what is Lazarus?

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

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

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

- Scott
Nov 21 '05 #16

P: n/a

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:18********************@giganews.com...
I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.

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

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

Just wondering if anyone else had tried it.

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

Jim Hubbard

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

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

-JEH
Nov 21 '05 #17

P: n/a
> It's a decent RAD based BASIC language development product but it
lacks important features supported
in Classic Visual Basic.

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


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

Rick Rothstein - MVP (Visual Basic)

Nov 21 '05 #18

P: n/a
"Mitchell Vincent" <mv******@newsgroup.nospam> schrieb:
Seems like VB.Net could benefit from packing down to a single exe with no
dependencies outside the exe.

The DotNetFramework is included with Windows XP


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

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


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

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>

Nov 21 '05 #19

P: n/a
Paul Clement <Us***********************@swspectrum.com> wrote:
Is it a replacement for Classic Visual Basic? Depends upon whether you can
afford to sacrifice some rather important features.


Such as what?

Many plug-in authors and other code-sharers have extended REALbasic in a
lot of good directions, so whatever you think is lacking might actually
be out there as a drop-in solution.
Nov 21 '05 #20

P: n/a
Jim Hubbard <re***@groups.please> wrote:
I am downloading the REALbasic 5.5 demo and was just wondering if anyone
else had tried it.


I tried it back around version 2.x. :-)
Nov 21 '05 #21

P: n/a

Paul Clement wrote:

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

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

Is it in the same class as Visual Basic.NET? Not even close.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)


It would be helpful to know what the important features are that you
believe a VB user must sacrific to use REALbasic. What is it about
REALbasic that you feel doesn't compare to VB.NET?

Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.

Nov 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
Geoff, how about databases in 5.5.5mac standard? They are a no working.

ge***@realsoftware.com wrote:
Paul Clement wrote:
It's a decent RAD based BASIC language development product but it


lacks important features supported
in Classic Visual Basic. I'm sure multi-platform support would be


limited in one way or another as
all operating systems do not necessarily support the same features.

Is it a replacement for Classic Visual Basic? Depends upon whether


you can afford to sacrifice some
rather important features.

Is it in the same class as Visual Basic.NET? Not even close.
Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

It would be helpful to know what the important features are that you
believe a VB user must sacrific to use REALbasic. What is it about
REALbasic that you feel doesn't compare to VB.NET?

Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.

Nov 21 '05 #23

P: n/a
ge***@realsoftware.com wrote:

It would be helpful to know what the important features are that you
believe a VB user must sacrific to use REALbasic. What is it about
REALbasic that you feel doesn't compare to VB.NET?


What is really missing (and not even available from a 3rd party
vendor) is a decent data bound grid like Visual Basic's DataGrid
which supports in-cell-editing out of the box.

I have evaluated Einhugur's DataGrid, but it didn't provide me
with the things I was looking for.

What I'd like to see is something like Microsoft Access' Grid.
I supply the table/query name and after running the application
I can browse the data source and edit/insert/delete records
without any additional code.

Visual Basic has such features since version 4 (in version 3
also available from 3rd party vendors).

Gerald
Nov 21 '05 #24

P: n/a
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
"Mitchell Vincent" <mv******@newsgroup.nospam> schrieb:
Seems like VB.Net could benefit from packing down to a single exe
with no dependencies outside the exe.

The DotNetFramework is included with Windows XP

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

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

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


Available, as in, the user had to go looking for it - right?

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com
Nov 21 '05 #25

P: n/a
"Mitchell Vincent" <mv******@newsgroup.nospam> schrieb:
You are right, but the .NET Framework was available on the Windows XP
SP1/SP2 CD-ROM version.


Available, as in, the user had to go looking for it - right?


Right...

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
Nov 21 '05 #26

P: n/a
Gerald Aichholzer wrote:
ge***@realsoftware.com wrote:

It would be helpful to know what the important features are that you
believe a VB user must sacrific to use REALbasic. What is it about
REALbasic that you feel doesn't compare to VB.NET?


What is really missing (and not even available from a 3rd party
vendor) is a decent data bound grid like Visual Basic's DataGrid
which supports in-cell-editing out of the box.

I have evaluated Einhugur's DataGrid, but it didn't provide me
with the things I was looking for.


I have mentioned this repeatedly. The "listbox" and other grids controls
are terrible -- nothing compared to the native data grids found in
Delphi or VB6. Then, compare third-party grids for RB to Woll2Woll, F1,
TMS Software, etc... and you really see a weakness that makes RB look
like an early release with less than 1000 users.

Data grid, n-tier database access (not 2/3), a serious text edit
control, ability to place all edit controls within a grid, better
enumeration of settings (I've discussed this with Joe Strout when he
asked for specific controls... and he agreed), a better listbox/grid
editor with column names and settings in a grid-like dialog, in-place
editing of static text (called labels by the rest of us), a far better
tab/notebook model, improvements to panels (so I can nest without
crashing), fewer issues with composite windows, a component model so
"plug-ins" act like VCLs or Active-X controls added to custom toolbars
in other IDEs, an IEEE/GAAP BCD data type or something similar for
financial data, easier way to define constants, editing of "passed"
values in subs and functions without all the darned dialogs...

Oh, trust me, I could go on and on...

Don't even try to pretend RB is at the same level as other tools -- it
isn't. It is a good tool, but it is not great. It is weak in a lot of
areas and it would require a larger development team and more capital to
really rip ahead... and that's just the nature of the market.

Of course, I think a lot of free tools show promise, but it never hurts
to have a few million dollars from IBM, Borland, BEA, and SAP to fund
development. Trust me, I bet I could assemble a good team for $35
million -- I'd hire the former Metrowerks PowerPlant X team and some
former Kylix developers for a start. I'd use FreePascal Lazarus, VB6,
and Delphi 6 as my IDE models (not the new IDEs -- yuck).

I cannot fault Real for doing a good job with limited resources. The old
CodeWarrior baggage is still there, as are control decisions. Anytime a
company does rework things to be more "modern" developers with existing
code will whine and gripe. That's clearly a problem for MS, where C++
programmers have not migrated en masse to C# as hoped.

I did read that 43 percent of VB programmers now plan to use a non-BASIC
language in the near future, following some choices by MS. That is a
telling number. I wonder what those programmers will use? Java? C#? C++?
Something else entirely?

I use RB on my Mac, it is the only game in town unless you want to learn
Objective-C or a dedicated database tool (Omnis, 4D) for an app that
never seems to look like a modern OS X application.

My experiences... RB is good, decent, not great and far from it. Maybe
2005 will propel it forward in ways I cannot anticipate.

- Scott
Nov 21 '05 #27

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

You can locate the Lazarus IDE: http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/
Thanks for providing the link and information, Scott. Do you use the
Lazarus product at all? I just downloaded it and it looks a bit like the
original VB3 IDE. It doesn't want to compile a simple form with a
groupbox and edit field though.

After closing the project down and opening it back up by clicking
on the Lazarus Project file, LazTest.lpr, I kept getting errors upon
trying to compile. So I closed the project down and tried to open
the other LazTest.lpi ("Lazarus Project") file. And I got the same
errors. Plus there were streaming errors trying to save the project.

So after about 90 minutes of uninstalling, reinstalling and then
trying again, I ended up with the same errors. Then I tried by
opening the frmTest.lfr and wallah! It compiled by it didn't put
the executable into the folder with the source code. It didn't
create a bin folder.

So I went to look for the file in the temp folder. There it sat, all
5.5MB of a simple form, along with left over files that were never
deleted from the temp folder.

So far, it's 5x bigger than the smallest RealBasic executable.
There are no help files.
It took me about two hours get my first Hello World program
out of it.

I know the program is free, and I'm not complaining. I am open
to looking for new development platforms. I'm unhappy to say
though, that it just isn't going to replace Visual Basic for me. Things
that seems to be missing, activeX components and dll compilation.

Compared to the free RealBasic platform, RealBasic wins this
hands down. Compared to Visual Basic 6, I'll definitely say that
Visual Basic 6 wins.

On the bright side, the IDE looks good. The tabbed controls
looks swell. If you guys put that much effort into making it user
friendly, I think you'd guys have a fair chance at providing MS
some competition.

Just my two cents worth. Thanks for the information about the
pascal project. I wish you guys all the best.

The same goes for the RealBasic development team. Good luck!

--
Jim Carlock
Please post replies to newsgroup.
Jim Hubbard wrote: "Brian Henry" <br**********@newsgroups.nospam> wrote:
if you don't break something at some point you cant progress forward...
and microsoft does its best to maintain backward compatability through
time.. it's not an easy task for any company... and write once and run
anywhere has always been BS because even in JAVA across platforms you have
compatability issues and things behaving differently


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

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

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

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

Jim Hubbard


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

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

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

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

So just what is Lazarus?

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

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

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

- Scott
Nov 21 '05 #28

P: n/a
Jim Carlock wrote:

Thanks for providing the link and information, Scott. Do you use the
Lazarus product at all? I just downloaded it and it looks a bit like the
original VB3 IDE. It doesn't want to compile a simple form with a
groupbox and edit field though.
You have to watch the pages, along with the Pascal groups. Lazarus is
still "incomplete" and you have to make sure every single setting is
just right. FreePascal from the command line is the standard confusion
of switches.

So far, it's 5x bigger than the smallest RealBasic executable.
There are no help files.
It took me about two hours get my first Hello World program
out of it.
Lazarus has to be set to not include controls in the executable. I
forget the settings, but like Delphi you have to tell it what to include
and what not to include. The defaults always include more units than you
probably need.

I know the program is free, and I'm not complaining. I am open to looking for new development platforms. I'm unhappy to say
though, that it just isn't going to replace Visual Basic for me. Things
that seems to be missing, activeX components and dll compilation.


The price of cross-platform tools: you cannot have Active-X and compile
for Linux or OS X. Nor do you have DLLs on OS X. The compromises with
crossplatform tools may always be too many for a lot of us. If you write
an RB program that uses ActiveX, you can't have the same functionality
on OS X. You end up with the "least-powerful" set of controls to ensure
the controls exist on all targets.

This is why I am thrilled that FreePascal can be used in XCode on the
Mac -- I don't care to be cross-platform. If I wanted to be
cross-platform, I would probably use CodeWarrior or a GCC/GTK+
combination. I also like wxWidgets in some examples.

Nothing will replace Delphi/VB6 on my PC, and I would *never* write a PC
application in REALbasic.

Hope that helps a little tiny bit.
- Scott
Nov 21 '05 #29

P: n/a
If you mean the built-in database engine, please let me know what the
problem is. If you're talking about connecting to database servers,
that has always been a feature of the Professional edition, not the
Standard Edition.

Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.

Nov 21 '05 #30

P: n/a
We recognize that better database features such as the one you
described are an area where REALbasic could use some improvement. We
will be addressing this in future releases.

Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.

Nov 21 '05 #31

P: n/a
Actually, I believe that article said that 43% of the VB developers
that responded to the survey where looking for an alternative to .NET.

Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.

Nov 21 '05 #32

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.