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
