By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,016 Members | 2,265 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,016 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Maybe we shouldn't ask for the old VB back.....

P: n/a
There is another alternative which looks promising - REALbasic.

I have just downloaded the demo - so don't lynch me if I'm wrong - but
REALbasic looks like a very strong contender to take over where Visual Basic
died. Sure, it has plenty of room for growth....but bear with me for a
minute.

I am very intrigued with the notion of building apps for Windows, MAC and
Linux from a single set of source code that is very similar to Visual
Basic's syntax.

-------from the website
a.. Convert VB Apps to Linux Create new software or convert existing apps
from VB to Linux. Use the included VB Project Converter to migrate tables,
forms and code to REALbasic to give you a head-start to get your
applications to Linux or Macintosh.
b.. Visual Basic Similarity Now the properties and controls palettes can
be docked and the message box command works comparably to VB.
-------

The single exe produced (i.e. no DLL Hell) thing also has peaked my
interest.

From my first look, there seems to not be a lot of drag and drop items in
the toolbox, but I've had it open all of 5 minutes....so I'll be looking
around the IDE a lot more tonight.

It'd be nice to be able to build applications NOT dependent on any
particular OS. From the website

-------from the website

a.. Cross-platform capabilities Build Linux applications from a single code
base, from your Windows or Macintosh computer, just by clicking a check-box.
View REALbasic's build settings on Windows XP.
a.. Supported Distributions Any x86-based Linux distribution with GTK+ 2.0
(or higher), Glibc-2.3 (or higher) and CUPS (Common UNIX Printing System),
which includes:
a.. Red Hat Enterprise 3
a.. SuSE Linux 8.1 (and higher)
a.. Mandrake Linux 9.1 (and higher)
a.. (Note: User feedback indicates that those inexperienced with Linux may
have an easier time installing Mandrake.)

-------

Of course, I'll need to build a Linux box this weekend and I can borrow a
MAC box to test out a couple of simple apps....so - I should have more info
by Monday.

Meanwhile, do me a favor and DL the demo and let me know what you find.
It's at http://www.realsoftware.com/.

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


P: n/a
So far the applications I have tested (from the Monkeybread website) are
unbearably slow.

This would be enough to turn off most users.

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
There is another alternative which looks promising - REALbasic.

I have just downloaded the demo - so don't lynch me if I'm wrong - but
REALbasic looks like a very strong contender to take over where Visual Basic
died. Sure, it has plenty of room for growth....but bear with me for a
minute.

I am very intrigued with the notion of building apps for Windows, MAC and
Linux from a single set of source code that is very similar to Visual
Basic's syntax.

-------from the website
a.. Convert VB Apps to Linux Create new software or convert existing apps
from VB to Linux. Use the included VB Project Converter to migrate tables,
forms and code to REALbasic to give you a head-start to get your
applications to Linux or Macintosh.
b.. Visual Basic Similarity Now the properties and controls palettes can
be docked and the message box command works comparably to VB.
-------

The single exe produced (i.e. no DLL Hell) thing also has peaked my
interest.

From my first look, there seems to not be a lot of drag and drop items in
the toolbox, but I've had it open all of 5 minutes....so I'll be looking
around the IDE a lot more tonight.

It'd be nice to be able to build applications NOT dependent on any
particular OS. From the website

-------from the website

a.. Cross-platform capabilities Build Linux applications from a single code
base, from your Windows or Macintosh computer, just by clicking a check-box.
View REALbasic's build settings on Windows XP.
a.. Supported Distributions Any x86-based Linux distribution with GTK+ 2.0
(or higher), Glibc-2.3 (or higher) and CUPS (Common UNIX Printing System),
which includes:
a.. Red Hat Enterprise 3
a.. SuSE Linux 8.1 (and higher)
a.. Mandrake Linux 9.1 (and higher)
a.. (Note: User feedback indicates that those inexperienced with Linux may
have an easier time installing Mandrake.)

-------

Of course, I'll need to build a Linux box this weekend and I can borrow a
MAC box to test out a couple of simple apps....so - I should have more info
by Monday.

Meanwhile, do me a favor and DL the demo and let me know what you find.
It's at http://www.realsoftware.com/.

Jim Hubbard


Jim

I have used REALBasic for the past 18 months. I have just stopped and
moved everything over to VB.Net.

REALBasic is a good product and great if you want to build cross platform
applications. It also builds to a single executable (although this
contains DLLs which is spawns temporarily when you run the program.)

The langauge contructions and capabilities are very good and it is a match,
in many ways, for VB. However, there are a few niggly things which affect
it's implentation in the Win32 environment. Because it comes historically
from the Mac environment there is still a lot of Mac about. The final
thing for me is probably not going to affact most people but turned into a
show stopper for me. I needed to be able to provide certain data in my
Version resource for another application. REALBasic only provides a couple
of fields (you cannot create a resource file). Also when I tried to change
the version resource data using an external resource editor the exe
crashed. I asked REALBasic about this - they only provide a fixed space
for the version resource and any editing crashes the exe. This is probably
not important for most people but is a pointer that other things are
lurking. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the product but I am pleased now
that I have moved on - sure to VB.Net not VB6

Jon
Nov 21 '05 #3

P: n/a

"Jon Masterson" <ne**@scruffyduck.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1q******************************@40tude.net.. .

Jim

I have used REALBasic for the past 18 months. I have just stopped and
moved everything over to VB.Net.

REALBasic is a good product and great if you want to build cross platform
applications. It also builds to a single executable (although this
contains DLLs which is spawns temporarily when you run the program.)

The langauge contructions and capabilities are very good and it is a
match,
in many ways, for VB. However, there are a few niggly things which affect
it's implentation in the Win32 environment. Because it comes historically
from the Mac environment there is still a lot of Mac about. The final
thing for me is probably not going to affact most people but turned into a
show stopper for me. I needed to be able to provide certain data in my
Version resource for another application. REALBasic only provides a
couple
of fields (you cannot create a resource file). Also when I tried to
change
the version resource data using an external resource editor the exe
crashed. I asked REALBasic about this - they only provide a fixed space
for the version resource and any editing crashes the exe. This is
probably
not important for most people but is a pointer that other things are
lurking. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the product but I am pleased now
that I have moved on - sure to VB.Net not VB6

Jon


Jon,

Thanks for the heads up.

I am doing development in VB.Net 2003 right now. And, I like the look
of VB.Net 2005, but I no longer trust Microsoft to maintain backwards
compatibility (like VB.Net broke with VB6 and Microsoft Office Outlook 2003
breaks compatibility with Word 2002, Excel 2002 and Outlook 2002).

I am also tired of the ridiculous prices that Microsoft charges for its
OS and development tools. (OT: I looked at the new release of OSX 10.1.4
Tiger - and frankly it kicks XP's ass. Tiger is out NOW with items only
promised in Longhorn......whenever that is released.)

I want another alternative. An alternative that small developers and
small companies can actually afford to buy and use. I want software that
doesn't put out another release just to line their pockets. I want a new
release to be worthwhile......have substance - not just change the interface
and move menu items around.

I want an alternative to Microsoft that allows the ease of development
that we had with VB6.

I want computing to be fun again.

(Got all of that - Santa?)

Jim Hubbard
Nov 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
Jim Hubbard wrote:
Jon,
I am also tired of the ridiculous prices that Microsoft charges for its
OS and development tools. (OT: I looked at the new release of OSX 10.1.4
Tiger - and frankly it kicks XP's ass. Tiger is out NOW with items only
promised in Longhorn......whenever that is released.)
I think you mean 10.4, and it does kick some serious butt. The only
thing wrong with Apple's OS is it's unbreakable ties to it's hardware.
If they would release the whole thing for x86 I think MS would be in
serious trouble.
I want an alternative to Microsoft that allows the ease of development
that we had with VB6.


So far I haven't seen anything but ease coming from VB.NET, but I wasn't
a huge VB6 developer so I might be missing a lot. I use PureBASIC
(www.purebasic.com) for tiny applications. It is pretty nice for little
utilities and such!

--
- Mitchell Vincent
- kBilling - Invoices Made Easy!
- http://www.k-billing.com
Nov 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
I agree about breaking code - mind you that has happened in REALBasic as
well. REAL are a much smaller outfit than MS and hopefully will listen to
their customers. I have been in the beta test program for the next version
of REALBasic which looks very good. I think it is an excellent choice for
cross platform designers - but I have always been a bit suspicious of multi
use tools (like the fax/photocopier/printer) cos they will inevitably make
compromises. Now that I have plumped for VB.Net I am pleased I did, but I
can still remember how REABasic works ;-)

Jon
Nov 21 '05 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.