Slashdot Mirror


REALbasic To Add Linux support

__past__ writes "REAL software just announced that the next version of their REALbasic IDE will add support for building native Linux applications, in addition to the Windows, Mac OS classic and OS X targets. Given that it will include a converter for existing Visual Basic projects, this could be a usefull tool for migrating existing apps written in everybody's favourite language to free platforms, something that other projects like Gambas or KBasic don't address."

9 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Being a VB Developer Myself... by thecampbeln · · Score: 4, Interesting
    (Pausing for the boos and hisses...) ...that is very interested in Linux on the desktop and beyond, this kind of development tool would be excellent! I looked a number of months ago when I realized that there were other *Basic providers but was unable to find anything that would compile to Linux (or even translate VB into a "real" language for later compilation).

    Even though I despise VB (I program ASP/VB for work and PHP for my own stuff, wishing I knew another app-dev language replace VB), it's what I know best and what pays the bills, so ANYTHING that will allow me to use those skills on *nix is a welcome one!!

    --
    "1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
    1. Re:Being a VB Developer Myself... by thecampbeln · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Invest some time in learning VB.NET or C#.

      ...and inherit 40 megs of shit required to run "Hello World"? This is the same reason I've avoided Java (besides the UI issues with Swing/etc.). Granted VB6 had the 1.6 megs of support DLLs required to run it (UPX-able down to 700k), but at least they were non-COM DLLs and therefore did not require an "install". All I want is a language that will compile down to an EXE with no (or VERY few) external dependences that you don't have to worry about installation/memory management/string manip./etc. I want to be able to compile my EXE and double click on it and have it run... <LoadedQuestion>is that too much to ask?</LoadedQuestion>

      Granted I'm not familiar with Mono's footprint, but I've been very unimpressed with Microsoft's .NET implementation, so I'm not sure how Mono could improve upon it (namely with the large footprint and the inability to truly compile a native EXE). Not to mention their patients on core .NET technologies that could be leveraged at any time to kill off projects like Mono.

      --
      "1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
  2. Re:Why is it... by __past__ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Frankly, I guess the language is still rather shitty. Problem is, it is there, and lots of apps use it, especially custom in-house stuff. Somebody in Munich will probably perform a Schuhplattler out of joy when he hears about that.

  3. Slap it to the Kylix camp, please! by torpor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I mean, really. Kylix doesn't run under OSX yet? Pffttt.

    With this move to supporting Linux, RealBasic is now what Delphi should have been ... oh, say, 2 years ago.

    I for one look forward to the *thousands* of simple, easy to use, well-written RealBasic apps that can now be relatively easily ported to Linux.

    I think that having a RAD tool like RealBasic around is going to be very positive for Linux - even in the light of other RAD tools, such as Kylix, the Gnome stuff (whatsitcalled?), &etc. RealBasic has been responsible for a lot of good, simple, easy apps under MacOS and Windows, from checkbook balancing programs to automatic downloaders, to email programs, etc.

    Having all of these new apps for Linux may well give a lot of companies the incentive to re-consider Linux on the desktop - well, in fact, having the ability to port RealBasic apps from Windows or OSX -> Linux will do a *lot* for Linux on the desktop, in my opinion.

    In my days as a consultant focusing exclusively on implementing Linux solutions for customers, there were plenty of examples of when a small to medium sized business would've run Linux if only there were (perceived to be) an easier "VB" style app development environment for Linux. This was supposed to happen with Kylix, but somehow that fell sort of flat (didn't it?).

    I hope RealBasic kicks some serious ass in this arena, and we start to see really interesting new apps being developed for Linux which don't just do the same old thing ...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:Slap it to the Kylix camp, please! by torpor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You've probably used more RealBasic apps on your Windows and Mac platforms than you realize.

      And you're not getting my point (or trying to divert from it, troll!) which is that *Enterprises*, given a simple easy to use RAD environment for developing their own easy to use, simple, standard good-quality *custom* apps for their own uses internally, will be more easily swung over to the Linux camp now that RealBasic - a development system targetting Win, Mac and Linux in one fell swoop - is available.

      The computer application sphere isn't just dominated by $10 shareware or shelf apps. There are hundreds of thousands of applications out there which you will never see: ones built, custom-wise, specifically for internal use within an organization.

      I've got a list of 8 potential customers I could go to now that RealBasic is available for Linux, where before there wouldn't have been a chance to even get Linux in the door - because a cross-platform RAD tool for developing business apps wasn't available.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  4. Who cares? by reynaert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Kylix has been available for years now, yet I have never seen a Windows application migrated to Linux. (Just checked freshmeat, it knows of 30 Delphi programs that run on Linux. Some of those might use GNU Pascal or Free Pascal instead of Kylix).

    Enter REALbasic. It has more or less the same design goals as Delphi, but it doesn't actually run on Linux, you just can create Linux applications from the Windows and Mac version (quote:REALbasic 5.5 will add the ability to create Linux applications from Windows or Macintosh computers.). It will thus be pretty useless for Linux programmers. Most users on other platforms probably won't bother to generate Linux binaries, let alone test them. For people switching from Mac/Windows to Linux it isn't very useful either, because they would need to keep their old platform around to make any changes.

  5. I doubt it will make a big difference by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Visual Basic is often described in VB books as the "system glue". This means that you usually don't write huge amounts of code in it, you use it to put components together. A database app would usually be made of standard controls, ADO objects, data bound controls, perhaps some third party spread/grid control and often Crystal Reports or something similar.

    Having a VB compiler won't help much, unless they also plan to make Linux versions of ADO libraries and other useful things that are used often. And then there are the tons of WinAPI calls many VB programs are full of, because VB's capabilities even in version 6 aren't very impressive.

    I'm currently considering how to move from VB to Linux, and my current best idea is to isolate the evil parts, like Crystal Reports by moving them to a separate program. This way I could use just one Windows computer to print reports, and rewrite most things in Linux more easily.

  6. I think this is pretty significant. by BitGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting


    In my opinion, there isn't really a good cross platoform GUI library out there. (Ok, lets just say- using my arbitrary criteria).

    I'd consider using Java, as I like the language, and Swing is Ok-- but there are no visual UI tools for swing (again, none that I didn't rule out for one reason or another.)

    Interface builder combined with Cocoa is so freaking amazing that once you've used it you become a bit jaded... but when you want to write an app that you know the market is going to be heavily linux and windows weighted, you need to come up with something.

    I had been looking at Runtime Revolutions, but they recently changed their licensing structure, and they use the card metaphor, so they're not as appealing -- but they do support one click compilation for windows, linux, mac and a half dozen other unixes.

    Realbasic seems a reasonable comrpomise-- I can write my hard core code in Objective-C (easy to port anywhere there's GCC) and do the UI in Basic using RB...

    Looks like I'll have to remember how to program in Basic... its been years.

    But at least I won't have to use a compromise cross platform GUI toolkit that compromises the Look and Feel. For instance, Qt apps look terrible on the Mac. Real Basic apps look about right on Linux and Windows (And fine on the Mac).

    Oh, and after learning Objective-C, I'd rather write in BASIC than C++!

    Yes, Objective-C is that good, at least paired with good frameworks (and gnustep is a good framework.)

    --
    Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  7. sweetness by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 2, Interesting
    REALbasic is what got me into programming about 5 years ago back when it was still called CrossBasic (xBasic), and REALsoftware was FYIsoftware.

    Amazingly enough, it IS possible to write a decent application in RB, the only problem is that you get all these kids who are just learning how to program, don't understand exceptions, error checking, or GUI design, and think they can be hax0rs releasing simple apps that just stink of poor design.

    Also, earlier versions (I'm not sure about the current release, the last version I played with was a pre-release of 2.0) had problems with very large projects. You would start getting random StackOverflowExceptions and NilObjectExceptions even when none should exist, but from what I hear, that's mostly fixed.

    One of RB's early advantages over other mac 'visual basics' was the fact that you could create subclasses of existing classes, and the language had full inheritance and all that jazz that a true object oriented language should have. It also sported XCMDs (hypercard plugins written in C or pascal or some more powerful language), so you could easily extend its capabilities. Later versions were able to import plugins in the form of compiled C++ code, which led to the lack of portability of some applications. Luckily there are compiler directives, so you could have several versions of a plugin in your project (win32, macOs, macOSX) and depending on what platform you're building for, it'll use different code.

    I wonder how much easier it will be to create plugins for linux. how about PERL plugins? SH? hmmmm....

    --



    ...spike
    Ewwwwww, coconut...