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

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 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.

Show quote Hide quote Thanks Herfried!

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

Jim Hubbard

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.

¤ 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)

Paul Clement wrote:
lacks important features supported
limited in one way or another as
you can afford to sacrifice some
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.

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

ge***@realsoftware.com wrote:
Show quoteHide quote

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.

ge***@realsoftware.com wrote:
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

Gerald Aichholzer wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteI 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

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.

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.

On 25 Mar 2005 03:14:08 -0800, 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?

I think Rick has probably passed those comments on at some point. Almost all of my Classic Visual
Basic applications implement external components to some extent and I also do a fair amount of
enterprise development that are dependent upon that feature (e.g. COM+, web apps).

In comparison to .NET? There's simply no comparison with respect to the number of different types of
projects you can create. I could probably come up with a very long grocery list of items that I
would need before considering REALBasic for the work I do.

This isn't to say that REALBasic isn't a worthy product for what it does, it simply just doesn't do
enough for me at this point.


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

Paul Clement <UseAdddressAtEndofMess***@swspectrum.com> wrote:

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.

Terry Olsen wrote:
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!!!

Jim Hubbard wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteI 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

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

Jim Hubbard <reply@groups.please> wrote:

I tried it back around version 2.x. :-)

Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
Show quoteHide quoteAvailable, as in, the user had to go looking for it - right?

Right...

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!

Show quoteHide quoteI 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

Jim Carlock wrote:

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.


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
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

ArrayList Strongly Typed
VB6 easier than VB.NET?
Datagrid colum sorting problem - URGENT
HELP! Cannot start NEW project
vb.net dll
Windows Form DataGrid - Need A Color Border Around Only The Selected Row - Will GDI Be Required
Button in a datagrid (windows form)
TreeView Enable