Microsoft not content with "dissing" just the Classic VB Developer Army....

[james]

bundled in some other products (like books maybe) . And
version which sells for almost $500.00.
you get access to more than one programming language. Pretty



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

 

[C-Services Holland b.v.]

Now, REALbasic still has some growing to do. Don't expect it to be anything
except REALbasic.

yay, another REALbasic advocacy thread! whoopdiedoo

 

[Paul Clement]

On 6 Apr 2005 15:21:07 -0700, (e-mail address removed) 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)

 

[Aaron Smith]

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/transcripts/vstudio/05_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.

 

[james]

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.


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

 

[Jonathan Johnson]

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

 

[Aaron Smith]

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.

 

[Markus]

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

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ > 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)

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ 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.

I was referring to web services and web applications. I didn't see support for either in REALBasic.
If I missed it you may want to point it out on your web site.

Actually it might help if you could provide a bit more detail with respect to features on your web
site. I realize that this stuff can be downloaded, but some folks may not want to do this. A FAQ
would help as well in answering questions such as "Does REALBasic support 3rd Party ActiveX
controls?"


Paul
~~~~
Microsoft MVP (Visual Basic)

 

[Jonathan Johnson]

I was referring to web services and web applications. I didn't see

support for either in REALBasic.

If I missed it you may want to point it out on your web site.

REALbasic doesn't limit you to what you can develop. It has a TCPSocket
class, and using the TCPSocket you can build basically any internet
application. While there are not built in templates (yet) to do that,
people have accomplished it.

From our in-depth page

(<http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/indepth/>), it does show that
we support calling SOAP natively, and if you search a little on some
third party websites like <http://www.rbgarage.com/>, you can find some
RPC classes.

I didn't realize you were interested in web service applications, sorry
about that. I also have an example that if you're interested I can
email anyone offlist. It is based on the HTTP Server in my article I
mentioned previously, but provides a small framework for responding to
incomding SOAP queries.

Actually it might help if you could provide a bit more detail with

respect to features on your web

site. I realize that this stuff can be downloaded, but some folks may not want to do this. A FAQ
would help as well in answering questions such as "Does REALBasic support 3rd Party ActiveX
controls?"

While I understand your point, that one is actually on our website
It's listed under Windows-Specific Technologies on the in-depth page
mentioned above.

With that said, we are in the middle of designing a new website and are
looking at ways to help answer questions. Since my intent of replying
on this list isn't to do marketing, I don't want to go in-depth about
REALbasic's feature set on-list. However, if you, or anyone else, are
interested about the presence of a particular feature in REALbasic,
feel free to reply to me off-list, and I will answer any questions you
may have. If you feel there is something that needs to be changed or
improved upon, we are also interested in hearing that. We value
everyone's feedback.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[James Curran]

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)

I was told the Office is $495 because that's the maximum amount most
first line managers can expense without approval from higher up.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

¤ > 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.

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.

¤ >
¤ > 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. ;-)

Me too. But, I believe that I know why it hasn't. There are 2 reasons....

1) The GPL. The GPL is great for exchanging knowledge, but it sucks as a
business model. You can't make money as an ISV if you give away your source
code to potential clients (who can just compile it and run it for free) or
to potential competitors (who will simply take your hard won innovations and
cut and psate them into your competitor's products). In order to have a
solid foundation for software, there has to be proprietary code and a
pay-for-use model. Anything else (although quite charming in a socialist
sort-of way) will fail.

2) Lack of a "task oriented" programming language in all distros. The one
single thing that had the most impact in making Windows the dominant force
it is today was classic Visual Basic. (Don't take my word for it though....
Check out Alan Cooper's web page here -
http://www.cooper.com/alan/father_of_vb.html - especially the last
sentence.)

It is clear to Bill Gates that Visual Basic was a dominant force in
making Windows the success it is today. But, why is that?

IMHO, it is because small businesses could adopt Windows as a platform
and use classic Visual Basic to write business-specific applications without
having an MIS degree. It made programmers out of almost anyone. It
empowered people and businesses without burdening them with the task of also
becoming a professional programmer to write applications to accomplish their
personal and business goals.

"Task oriented" programmers do not care to know how the IDE works "under
the covers". They don't want to be bogged down with the details. They just
want to be able to sit down and write a simple application to make their
lives easier.

The typical "task oriented" developer does something other than
programing for a living. S/he may be a veterinarian, attorney, mail clerk,
student, housewife, stay-at-home dad, libraian, CEO, accountant........you
just name it. They used Windows and VB because those 2 tools allowed them
to fill in the gaps that they see in their everyday jobs. They only write
apps to make making a living easier. They aren't "professional programmers"
and, frankly, they don't want to be.

When small businesses saw the vlaue that Visual Basic added (by turning
a great deal of their current workers into "programmers") small business
adopted it in droves. And, when the employees of those businesses saw how
easy it was to use, they adopted it for personal projects too. And, when
programming shops saw Visual Basic taking off, they understood that it was
because of ease-of-use and they added to this ease-of-use by creating the
largest 3rd party component base for any program in history.

Visual Basic is what made Windows great. And, Linux distributors
haven't figured this out yet. If they would just package something like
REALbasic with every Linux distro, they too could take advantage of this
proven model for success. THAT'S when Linux will really start to
move....and not until then.

Sure.....they have MONO. But, Mono is not a "task oriented" RAD
environment. Linux has always had a problem dumbing down enough for the
masses. Linspire has made great strides in this area....but, without their
own Visual Basic, they will never be a real contender to the throne.

This is the most puzzling thing to me about Microsoft's VB.Net
ambitions. They threw away the most successful tag team in the world (the
classic Visual Basic RAD/"task oriented developer" toolset + Windows). Why?

I really do understand moving forward, and I completely agree with it.
But, not at the expense of losing the army of "Task oriented" developers
that depended on a high level, RAD intensive, drag and drop environment like
classic Visual Basic.

Have you ever read a VB.Net book (epsecially by Microsoft)? I have 54
of them. They all go into great detail about the .Net framework, classes,
garbage collection, remoting, ad nausem. DO THEY EVEN KNOW THEIR TARGET
AUDIENCE?

They are doing nothing more than discouraging the "task oriented"
classic Visual Basic developer from moving on and adopting VB.Net.

"Task oriented" developers don't care about what's "under the covers".
Why in the hell would you show these developers the internally written code
in a VB.Net application? To confuse them? If that was the goal -
CONGRATULATIONS! You da man!

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.

¤ 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 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.

¤ 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.

With REALbasic, this isn't a problem.

¤ >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.

In REALbasic, all core components work on all OSs. (Jon....correct me here
if I'm wrong please).

Jim Hubbard

 

[Jonathan Johnson]

In REALbasic, all core components work on all OSs. (Jon....correct me here
if I'm wrong please).

That is correct. There are very few things included that aren't
supported on all platforms -- such as the RegistryItem class (for the
Windows registry), OLE support, ActiveX support. The only things that
aren't supported on all platforms are the platform specific
technologies.

-Jon

 

[Scott Wyatt]

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.

Whoa, Jim... you apparently don't use REALbasic a lot!

After a year porting a large application, I can tell you that it isn't
that simple for platforms -- and I disagree with a lot of what you imply
about RB. I use the tool a lot and just spent a few hours today dealing
with some "issues" relating to RB and how well it does/doesn't play with
other devices and software.

If you care at all about GUI guidelines, you have to create windows that
reflect the platforms. Users come to expect certain behaviors on each.
Even "OK" and "Cancel" are in a different order on the Mac than the
Windows platform. Users do notice, so you have to spend time creating
custom classes or code that changes things.

RB supports different controls on different platforms. Want a toolbar?
Better be using a Mac.

The EditField renders improperly on Windows -- Real has yet to deal with
the fact Windows assumes 96px vs 72px on the Mac. As a result, 12-point
text is actually 10-point on the PC. Slick, guys, really slick. It
means you have to do your own gymnastics to get this right. (Read the RB
NUG mailing list archives.)

You'll need to use a fair number of plug-ins, in my experience, to come
even close to basic VB features. Open your checkbook, or do without. So
far, I'm not anywhere near the feature set I am used to from my
VB/Delphi days.

MySQL 4.1/5.x uses a new password scheme, for better security... except
you cannot use it with RB. You are forced to use the older, shorter
passwords until this is fixed. So, a client upgrades a server for
security (ours did), and you come crashing down until you read the RB
NUG archives. Blech.

Data grids... read the current threads on the NUG -- the grids are not
ready for prime time. They are "listbox" controls with no where near the
features found in VB or Delphi. (See previous posts on this.)

I could go on for quite a bit. You have HID hardware? You're out of luck
on the Mac, but there are Active X controls for the PC. So much for
crossplatform. What's HID? Try some USB barcode printers, cash drawers,
medical devices, joysticks (feedback style), tablets (for artists), and
more. Oh, well... didn't really want to use my Mac for any of those
things. (Yeah, right! I'm still looking for solutions.)

Don't even imagine RB as a solution that doesn't break. They updated
from 5.2 to 5.5 and along the way broke a number of third-party tools I
use -- including a slightly better data grid and a good calendar control
I like a lot.

On the Mac side, when Apple does an update, things do break. I've had
FireWire drives stop working, a PowerBook trackpad started taking
vacations, and a G3 developed random boot issues that required a
firmware update. None of these were major issues at all -- easy to fix,
easy to handle -- but they illustrate that computers are complex beasts.

Think you are escaping DLL hell with RB? No way. For joystick support,
you have to locate Apple's HID.bundle folder and place it in your
application's folder. I've already had one app replace HID.bundle with
an older copy. That was nice.

If you use Active X, you'll still have DLL problems on Windows, too. If
you use anything with a DLL, you have to worry about it no matter your
language of choice.

No one is taking my Mac from me, that's for sure. I just put another PC
out to pasture today. But don't think RB is anywhere near what VB or
Delphi is. You will hit brick walls and learn to work around them. The
people on the RB NUG list are great at offering solutions, when they
can. Problem for me is that the solutions are to problems that shouldn't
exist.

I use RB and plan to learn Cocoa over the summer... or at least start
learning it. I am not going to sacrifice program quality for the sake of
being cross platfrom or for some unreasonable desire to stay with BASIC.
Porting means rewriting code no matter what, anyway.

- Scott

 

[Jonathan Johnson]

If you care at all about GUI guidelines, you have to create windows that
reflect the platforms. Users come to expect certain behaviors on each.
Even "OK" and "Cancel" are in a different order on the Mac than the
Windows platform. Users do notice, so you have to spend time creating

custom classes or code that changes things.

I wouldn't go as drastic as creating a new window for each platform.
REALbasic has a good constants system that allows you to specify a
constant that will let you associate a value with a particular
platform. I generally just use those to move the OK/Cancel buttons
around.

But I agree, making your app feel right on all platforms takes some
consideration.

RB supports different controls on different platforms. Want a toolbar?
Better be using a Mac.

Or, use one of the many freely available third party controls that work
cross-platform.

The EditField renders improperly on Windows -- Real has yet to deal with
the fact Windows assumes 96px vs 72px on the Mac. As a result, 12-point
text is actually 10-point on the PC. Slick, guys, really slick. It
means you have to do your own gymnastics to get this right. (Read the RB
NUG mailing list archives.)

Well, the problem is actually that we are accounting for it, not that
we ignore it. This was a "feature" from back in REALbasic 2.x when
Windows support was first introduced. It basically ensured that
relative to control size and window size, the application would look
the same on Windows and Mac. This was actually rather good back in the
day for people who were writing on the Mac and wanted to deploy on
Windows, they're apps basically looked the same.

However, we realize that we need to solve this in a different, better
way. All I can say is that we have it scheduled for a future release.

MySQL 4.1/5.x uses a new password scheme, for better security... except
you cannot use it with RB. You are forced to use the older, shorter
passwords until this is fixed. So, a client upgrades a server for
security (ours did), and you come crashing down until you read the RB

NUG archives. Blech.

Unfortunately, MySQL also changed the licensing scheme which is making
it more difficult to release a plugin legally. We are working on this,
however, and when the plugin is updated, since it is separate from the
product, you will be free to use it in older versions.

I could go on for quite a bit. You have HID hardware? You're out of luck
on the Mac, but there are Active X controls for the PC. So much for
crossplatform. What's HID? Try some USB barcode printers, cash drawers,
medical devices, joysticks (feedback style), tablets (for artists), and
more. Oh, well... didn't really want to use my Mac for any of those
things. (Yeah, right! I'm still looking for solutions.)
(Snip)

Think you are escaping DLL hell with RB? No way. For joystick support,
you have to locate Apple's HID.bundle folder and place it in your
application's folder. I've already had one app replace HID.bundle with
an older copy. That was nice.

REALbasic provides "GameInput" classes which work cross platform to
provide access to HID devices. It appears you have used those on the
Mac, because that's what the HID.bundle is for.

As for the bundle -- on the Mac, you can use a free utility like Thomas
Reed's AppBundler (<http://www.bitjuggler.com/products/appbundler/>) to
package your application as a bundle, and place the HID.bundle inside
of it. This is a unique case for REALbasic, because Apple provided the
extra HID support as a separate distributable as opposed to being built
into the system.

If you need help getting down and dirty with the IOKit on OS X for
two-way interaction with HID devices, feel free to email me off list
and I'll point you in the right direction.

Don't even imagine RB as a solution that doesn't break. They updated
from 5.2 to 5.5 and along the way broke a number of third-party tools I
use -- including a slightly better data grid and a good calendar control
I like a lot.

We work with plugin authors to help ensure that things don't break. We
have plugin authors already announcing support for REALbasic 2005.
Sometimes plugins do break and fixes aren't available immediately, but
as with any major upgrade, I suggest trying the new version first to
make sure it works with you. We try extremely hard to maintain
backwards compatibility with older projects. In our examples download,
there are examples that haven't been touched in nearly 6 years.

If you use Active X, you'll still have DLL problems on Windows, too. If
you use anything with a DLL, you have to worry about it no matter your
language of choice.

Correct. Our message is that we don't rely on packaging applications
with DLLs, which means that unless you're using declares or external
resources (like ActiveX), you won't need to worry about DLL hell. (The
above example of the HID.bundle is the only case that I can think of in
which the application cannot be built into one file, due to Apple's
decision to package that functionality the way it is)

-Jon

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Whoa, Jim... you apparently don't use REALbasic a lot!

Correct. I am new to REALbasic.

I hev read your issues with REALbasic and will certainly keep them in mind
as I play with the beta.

No one is taking my Mac from me, that's for sure. I just put another PC
out to pasture today. But don't think RB is anywhere near what VB or
Delphi is.

I agree. But, they didn't try and be cross-platform. Writing a coding
platform that is platform specific is a world easier than trying to develop
a true cross-platform development environment.....so, I'm apt to be a little
more patient.

You will hit brick walls and learn to work around them. The people on the
RB NUG list are great at offering solutions, when they can. Problem for me
is that the solutions are to problems that shouldn't exist.

We shouldn't have problems porting larger VB6 apps to VB.Net that results in
rewrites most of the time, and there's no work-around for that - from
anyone - at this time.

I use RB and plan to learn Cocoa over the summer... or at least start
learning it. I am not going to sacrifice program quality for the sake of
being cross platfrom or for some unreasonable desire to stay with BASIC.
Porting means rewriting code no matter what, anyway.

I also agree. While the BASIC-like syntax is convenient, it is no basis
from which to choose a platform. You must choose a platform based on the
ability to deliver the functionality required by your clients and the
stability of the platform (i.e. how well does the environment treat its
older code base?).

Thanks for your views on REALbasic. Have you tested these issues in the
newest beta?

 

[Paul Clement]

¤ > ¤ 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)

 

[Jim Hubbard]

¤ > ¤ 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

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Talk to some of the other Classic VB MVPs to see if they believe REALBasic
measures up to Classic.

Found their own comparisons to Visual Basic, C++ and Java at
http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/compare/.