Real Software
-
I must step in at this point, because Real Basic is comparable with VB 6, and not VB.NET, so arguments that VB.NET is as good as C#, while interesting, have no relevance here. It's like comparing a bicycle to a horse - while they both theoretically could be used for the same thing, nobody in their right mind would attempt to go show jumping on a bicycle. So - what do I think about Real Basic? Well, I preferred VB - and that's saying something. The problem is, it's big selling point is that it's cross platform, which isn't of much interest to a lot of developers if the underlying application doesn't have access to the fancy features. And the simple fact is VB's biggest selling point was how customisable it was with the use of ActiveX controls, which aren't cross platform.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
nobody in their right mind would attempt to go show jumping on a bicycle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct0yd1-gxTo&feature=related[^] Although I'm not entirely certain on their mental status.
My current favourite word is: Nipple!
-SK Genius
-
ha ha I think you're right in os far as what was probably meant, but as a die-hard VB defender I think ERL was right! ;P Trouble with all you anti-VB lot is that you're all stuck in the past. With the advent of .NET there is really not that much difference in what can be done in either language. If VB is still more forgiving of bad programming practice, such practices are still the fault of the developer, not the language. In some ways, this coming together of the different languages in the .NET framework is a retrograde step, precisely because it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another. In the old days, VB was great for quick and dirty solutions, while C (in whatever guise) was all but essential for anything "heavy-duty". Nowadays, it really doesn't matter - it's purely a question of personal prefernce which language you use - they are all the same under the hood.
Phil Uribe wrote:
If VB is still more forgiving of bad programming practice, such practices are still the fault of the developer, not the language.
For those of us working under deadlines maintaining code written by programmers who didn't like to use
Option Strict, that statement is of little comfort.Phil Uribe wrote:
it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another.
...leaving only the relative disadvantages.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
Dumbed Down VB isn't that an oxymoron?
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego.Because it's VB and everything in VB is bassackwards that would make it a MoronOxy. Crud I used a period I don't think I'm supposed to use anything... :doh:
-
ha ha I think you're right in os far as what was probably meant, but as a die-hard VB defender I think ERL was right! ;P Trouble with all you anti-VB lot is that you're all stuck in the past. With the advent of .NET there is really not that much difference in what can be done in either language. If VB is still more forgiving of bad programming practice, such practices are still the fault of the developer, not the language. In some ways, this coming together of the different languages in the .NET framework is a retrograde step, precisely because it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another. In the old days, VB was great for quick and dirty solutions, while C (in whatever guise) was all but essential for anything "heavy-duty". Nowadays, it really doesn't matter - it's purely a question of personal prefernce which language you use - they are all the same under the hood.
Phil Uribe wrote:
Nowadays, it really doesn't matter - it's purely a question of personal prefernce which language you use - they are all the same under the hood.
This is correct if only because the real language at point here is called MSIL. When you program the .NET platform, you're programming it in MSIL. Any abstraction on top of MSIL ( C#, VB ) is only an illusion.
“Cannot find REALITY.SYS...Universe Halted.” ~ God on phone with Microsoft Customer Support
-
Dumbed Down VB isn't that an oxymoron?
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego.Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Dumbed Down VB
It's just not possible. Bottom is bottom.
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
Dumbed Down VB
I thought that was a tautology.
Recent blog posts: *SQL Server / Visual Studio install order *Installing SQL Server 2005 on Vista *Crazy Extension Methods Redux * Mixins My Blog
No, it's simply redundant.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
Phil Uribe wrote:
If VB is still more forgiving of bad programming practice, such practices are still the fault of the developer, not the language.
For those of us working under deadlines maintaining code written by programmers who didn't like to use
Option Strict, that statement is of little comfort.Phil Uribe wrote:
it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another.
...leaving only the relative disadvantages.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Shog9 wrote:
For those of us working under deadlines maintaining code written by programmers who didn't like to use Option Strict, that statement is of little comfort.
Take it up with your employer.
Shog9 wrote:
...leaving only the relative disadvantages.
You can get used to curley brackets, just give it a chance.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Hello, I was wondering if any of you have tried software from REAL Software. Like RealBasic. The reason I asked is My boss found their site and wants me to get information on it. I looks like it is a dumbed down or simplified version of VB. Can anyone give me any plus of minuses on using this software that is only $500.00.
Real Basic's claim to fame is that it didn't follow Microsoft down the road of creating a very proprietary form of BASIC. It ran on just about all the original home computers, including the original Mac. It can trace it's roots back to Dartmouth BASIC and has the blessing of John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz the two professors who created it with a team of CS students. It's based on Fortran and Lisp. I found it interesting as a piece of history, but couldn't see that it had any practical use.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Phil Uribe wrote:
If VB is still more forgiving of bad programming practice, such practices are still the fault of the developer, not the language.
For those of us working under deadlines maintaining code written by programmers who didn't like to use
Option Strict, that statement is of little comfort.Phil Uribe wrote:
it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another.
...leaving only the relative disadvantages.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
Shog9 wrote:
For those of us working under deadlines maintaining code written by programmers who didn't like to use Option Strict, that statement is of little comfort.
Who in his sane mind would not use
Option Strict? I know,DirectCastandCTypeare verbose (especially the former, which is way more useful), but what's the point of using a compiled language if you're going to rely in late binding? To hell with the VB culture.If you can play The Dance of Eternity (Dream Theater), then we shall make a band.
-
Dumbed Down VB isn't that an oxymoron?
Need software developed? Offering C# development all over the United States, ERL GLOBAL, Inc is the only call you will have to make.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know. -- Ernest Hemingway
Most of this sig is for Google, not ego.:D
-
Hello, I was wondering if any of you have tried software from REAL Software. Like RealBasic. The reason I asked is My boss found their site and wants me to get information on it. I looks like it is a dumbed down or simplified version of VB. Can anyone give me any plus of minuses on using this software that is only $500.00.
It depends on what you want to achieve. I often browse the tool section in the DIY store, but wouldn't consider buying anything unless I had a job to do that could be done easier with a new purchase. Similarly, I investigate the programming problems I am trying to solve before looking in too much detail at any particular programming tool. If you want a cross-platform classic VB-like programming tool, and don't mind that the active user base is relatively small (= limited peer support), RealBasic looks fine. In my opinion, if you're working in a commercial environment, you're generally better off with something more mainstream.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
nobody in their right mind would attempt to go show jumping on a bicycle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct0yd1-gxTo&feature=related[^] Although I'm not entirely certain on their mental status.
My current favourite word is: Nipple!
-SK Genius
So nice to see that Rule 34 has been branching out.
-
Hello, I was wondering if any of you have tried software from REAL Software. Like RealBasic. The reason I asked is My boss found their site and wants me to get information on it. I looks like it is a dumbed down or simplified version of VB. Can anyone give me any plus of minuses on using this software that is only $500.00.
Hi Cory. I did only a very small project 2 years ago with RealBasic, so I really don't have much experience with it. However, here are RealBasic's best selling points. 1 - All the RAD simplicity & speed of development of VB6, but is cross platform (Windows, Mac & Linux). 2 - OOP development. 3 - No runtimes or external dependencies(no .NET or Java runtime needed, nor VB external DLLs). This means the applications can even be a self contained "portable"; that is you can run them from a USB key, and you don't need to install them. RB is marketed to developers that are already comfortable with the VB6 language & mode of development, and should be suitable for projects that you would build with VB6. It does appear though that RB's 3rd party add-ons and COM support tool market is a significantly smaller market than VB6's own. Hope this helps you Cory. If you do use RB, please update us all on this forum with your findings.
-
Hello, I was wondering if any of you have tried software from REAL Software. Like RealBasic. The reason I asked is My boss found their site and wants me to get information on it. I looks like it is a dumbed down or simplified version of VB. Can anyone give me any plus of minuses on using this software that is only $500.00.
I wouldn't describe it at all as a dumbed down version of VB6. It's like what VB7 should have been. I think a lot of developers who didn't want to go to .NET went to REALbasic. As far as its technical details it compiles to machine code, uses native interface controls, has object-oriented features like inheritance, polymorphism, interfaces, etc. I encourage you to check it out. They have a free 30 or so day trial. Let us know how it works for you.
-
ha ha I think you're right in os far as what was probably meant, but as a die-hard VB defender I think ERL was right! ;P Trouble with all you anti-VB lot is that you're all stuck in the past. With the advent of .NET there is really not that much difference in what can be done in either language. If VB is still more forgiving of bad programming practice, such practices are still the fault of the developer, not the language. In some ways, this coming together of the different languages in the .NET framework is a retrograde step, precisely because it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another. In the old days, VB was great for quick and dirty solutions, while C (in whatever guise) was all but essential for anything "heavy-duty". Nowadays, it really doesn't matter - it's purely a question of personal prefernce which language you use - they are all the same under the hood.
I totally agree with you Phil. I'm an old school programmer who worked in assembly language for 15 years, then C for 10 years, then up to C++, Cold Fusion, and now to VB.Net for the last two years. I was naturally attracted to C#, but my employer had standardized on VB.Net so that's what I learned. And I have to say that I like the clarity; brevity isn't always a virtue! But at one point, after reading many anti-VB rants I started to feel that I wasn't a "real" programmer anymore, despite knowing that both languages utilized the same runtime. Anyway, I got over it. And after all, when you get down to it it's all about design isn't it, no matter the language?
-
Phil Uribe wrote:
Nowadays, it really doesn't matter - it's purely a question of personal prefernce which language you use - they are all the same under the hood.
This is correct if only because the real language at point here is called MSIL. When you program the .NET platform, you're programming it in MSIL. Any abstraction on top of MSIL ( C#, VB ) is only an illusion.
“Cannot find REALITY.SYS...Universe Halted.” ~ God on phone with Microsoft Customer Support
That statement is equivalent to saying that the differences between every language that compiles to native code is just an illusion as well, because the real language is native machine code. Actually, if you are developing on Windows, it isn't even real machine code - it's abstracted to be executed by the HAL.
-
That statement is equivalent to saying that the differences between every language that compiles to native code is just an illusion as well, because the real language is native machine code. Actually, if you are developing on Windows, it isn't even real machine code - it's abstracted to be executed by the HAL.
Mike Marynowski wrote:
Actually, if you are developing on Windows, it isn't even real machine code - it's abstracted to be executed by the HAL.
Where does this weird idea come from? Native code is executed directly by the CPU.
“Cannot find REALITY.SYS...Universe Halted.” ~ God on phone with Microsoft Customer Support
-
Mike Marynowski wrote:
Actually, if you are developing on Windows, it isn't even real machine code - it's abstracted to be executed by the HAL.
Where does this weird idea come from? Native code is executed directly by the CPU.
“Cannot find REALITY.SYS...Universe Halted.” ~ God on phone with Microsoft Customer Support
-
You're misinterpreting it. The HAL is not a ".NET-like" virtualization of the CPU. It's a software layer that sits between the kernel and the motherboard. If you examine any native x86 PE file, you'll find honest-to-God, native CPU instructions, not some sort of HAL-abstracted P-code.
“Cannot find REALITY.SYS...Universe Halted.” ~ God on phone with Microsoft Customer Support
-
You're misinterpreting it. The HAL is not a ".NET-like" virtualization of the CPU. It's a software layer that sits between the kernel and the motherboard. If you examine any native x86 PE file, you'll find honest-to-God, native CPU instructions, not some sort of HAL-abstracted P-code.
“Cannot find REALITY.SYS...Universe Halted.” ~ God on phone with Microsoft Customer Support
I'm not misinterpreting it. It is certainly thinner than the .NET framework (much thinner), but you can virtualize windows to run on just about any hardware by implementing a HAL that translates those CPU instructions accordingly. Yes, the "machine code" in the executables is very close (if not identical) to the X86 instruction set to minimize the translation needed. But we are diverting...my point was that simply that just because everything ends up in a common format (be is MSIL or be it PE format for execution on windows) doesn't mean that every language that compiles down to the common format is equal and any differences are illusions. That's all :)
