Free IDE Gambas Reaches 1.0

A few months ago, the GPL IDE Gambas reached 1.0 release candidate phase, and now reader drfreak writes "Gambas has now hit 1.0 and looks promising as GNU/Linux's answer to Visual Basic. Now, if it ran in Windows too, it would truly crush VB for database applications. Check it out at gambas.sourceforge.net." A 1.0.1 release came out on January 3rd to fix a few bugs.

Comments

Best logo

[Uukrul]

NI think that the project is good enough to try to get a new design (and a new logo).
This project with a more professional look can be a great success.
Any thesigners out there?

Re:Best logo

[keesh]

If you're going to abuse them for lack of professionalism, why not just point out that they use elements?

Re:Best logo

[Diabolical]

Hey.. that's to attract all those Windows/IE users...

Re:Best logo

[Zone-MR]

Yeah, but elements aren't supported on IE :)

Re:Best logo

[yerfatma]

Poor craftsmen, tools . . . all that.

So now it's ok to like VB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so when you have all the features you laughed and belittled in Visual Basic on linux, there ok all of a sudden?

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[RenatoRam]

I guess VB is belittled not because of features, but because of the horrid quality of common vb apps.

And for the poor quality of the language.

And 'cause it tends to change and be incompatible from version to version ...and so on...

Will gambas apps be better than vb apps? If they are written by the same monkeys I don't think so.

The release of gambas IS great news, however, simply 'cause now we can reply to the endless "there is no simple RAD solution under linux" rants with "then use gambas, you fool!"

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[onion2k]

VB was only ever meant to be a rapid prototyping tool. You knock up a quick'n'dirty VB version as a proof of concept, then you write the proper version in a more robust language. Unfortunately the management/lazy coders almost always step in with "but we have a working version there.. lets release that".

If people used VB in the way it was meant to be used noone would have any complaints about it. (well, fewer complaints at least..)

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[Lussarn]

with VB You have to pay to an american company to release under ANY licence.

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[Spacejock]

I can never understand this attitude towards VB.

The reliability of apps written in VB has nothing to do with the language, and everything to do with the programmer. If you slap some code together, run it to make sure there are no syntax errors and then release it as version 1.0 how is that a fault with Visual Basic?

Without wanting to blow my own trumpet, I get many emails thanking me for my useful, stable programs, every one of which is written in VB. They're not simple apps, either - my major project is over 6 megs of source code.

VB allows me to code efficiently, quickly and with a minimum of errors, and until I come across something which allows me to code even quicker, even more efficiently and with even less errors I'm sticking with it.

I'm not claiming to be some guru level programmer, I'm just pointing out that it's a bit hard blaming VB for bad software just because beginners can dash in and code the World's Best Program in their lunch break.

Anyway, look on the positive side: If all those beginners started out with C# you'd have thousands of crappy, bug-ridden programs written in that language, and the 'VB generates crap' argument would go up in smoke.

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[onion2k]

You missed the point in my post. Coders write quick'n'dirty VB apps with the intention of redoing them in (for example) C++ later. The management then come in and want to release the quick'n'dirty version. I'm not suggesting you can't write robust VB code, I'm saying lots of people don't.

Besides which, Microsoft realised people use VB as a proper language instead of a RAD tool now, and they smartened it up a lot a few versions ago. Go back to the mid 90s and VB was NOT a stable dev platform.

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[juhaz]

No, it's not ok.

I wonder how tightly this is tied to the Basic implementation, and if it would be possible to switch the underlying language to something decent - say, python - without basically rewriting the whole mess?

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, slow down, here comes some hard to grok stuff:

Everything cool? Ok, let's go on...

Do you think that it's possible that the Linux community consists of DIFFERENT personalities with DIFFERENT opinions? Just maybe? And that the people who hate VB still hate VB and others who didn't think VB sucks to start with started this project?

I know, I know, this was too hard for you, but maybe try to sleep a few nights over it, maybe one day you will be able to understand such difficult concepts...

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[danheskett]

That's not true. You have to license the software if you wan't the IDE. You can develop very happily from the command line and compile and distribute or sell till your heart is complete via the .NET SDK. You get free compilers and headers and access to 100% of the features of the .NET runtime.

Plus there are *never* any runtime or distribution royalities.

Ohh, one more thing. If you are a VB programmer or a C# programmer, you should investigate Mono with GTK#.

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[iBod]

VB is a Rapid Application *development* tool, not a Rapid Application *prototyping* tool.

Of course, many can and do create prototype and throw-away applications using VB, but it is good tool for developing many serious Windows applications.

If the design is right and the code is clean and maintainable, what exactly would be the advantage in recoding it in C++ (assuming execution speed is not an issue and even then, just critical parts can be written in C++ and put in a DLL)?

I have developed app in VB and C++ for years and decide which tool is the best to use at the outset. I have never found it necessary to start out using VB then recode everything in C++.

So, if I were a development manager, why would I pay for the project to be done over again to achieve the same end result?

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[Val314]

>Coders write quick'n'dirty VB apps with the intention of redoing them in (for example) C++ later.

Back in the VB5/6 days i never heard anyone who did VB stuff that this is only meant as prototype. it was allways meant to be released as VB App. (with some DLLs written in VC++)

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[smallpaul]

VB has really terrible exception handling which DOES make it hard to write reliable code. It also has pathetic data structures which makes it difficult to write efficient code.

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[Homburg]

VB allows me to code efficiently, quickly and with a minimum of errors, and until I come across something which allows me to code even quicker, even more efficiently and with even less errors I'm sticking with it.

What else have you tried? I'm doing some VB work at the moment, and I'm finding it bloody horrible - I'd much rather be using python or (ugh) PHP.

VB is full of irritations - the almost-but-not exception handling (ON ERROR GOTO); the horrible inconsistencies, like a different syntax for calling functions and subroutines (WTF?) or having to end each block with a specific keyword (WEND, NEXT, END WITH); the rubbish standard library (Collection is utterly painful compared to the C++ STL, let alone python tuples, lists and dicts).

I guess all this stuff can be got used to, but I would have thought trying any new language would be a breath of fresh air. I'd be interested to hear what you've managed to find that was less good than VB.

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[dbacher]

It depends on the complexity of the application, etc.

VB is great at dealing with applications that take a supported data source, bind it to fields, and provide a user with a mechanism for editing.

The exception handling isn't great, but then none is right now on any front. You have to do substantial coding to get useful information out of a production application, regardless of the language involved, and substantial coding to avoid just dieing with an error message. In a production environment, even if you are using open source applications, the first priority is to get the app back up and running, and the second priorit is to identify why it failed. It's important not to require a core dump, etc. from a production application, because the dump could contain data you don't want exposed to the world (forcing dumps was, at one time, a common technique to obtain passwords, for example).

The begin/end block is purely a matter of taste. Borland used begin/end blocks in Turbo Basic, Quick Basic was a "we're not a clone" of Turbo Basic, and then Visual Basic inherited Quick Basic's syntax. For...Next, etc., were inherited from the original basic syntax, and it was felt to be important that BASIC code require minimal changes.

Having worked on a project that moved from GW Basic to Pro Basic to QuickBasic to Visual Basic to VB.NET, being able to reuse old code helped meet deadlines, but yes, readability wasn't always there. But not having to rewrite every line of code every time we upgraded languages really did help, and there wasn't a way to do that if they watned to change the syntax.

Visual Basic's IDE is very good at generating data bound forms -- that is forms that tie directly to either database files or files from a fixed file proprietary database. It requires very little code to make such applications, and most of that code is dedicated to error handling and graceful recovery.

In contrast, most GUI frameworks on C++ require piles of code and far moer effort. Python, likewise, tends to take actual effort to create these kinds of applications.

VB has traditionally had fairly good string processing, and VB interfaces with other Windows applications extremely well, and with much less code than C++ requires, for example.

If you are doing heavy array processing, you probably want to use C++. C++ is a lot faster at array processing tasks, although it performs less error checking.

If you are doing heavy list processing (which is different), and sometimes for set processing, you probably want to use a LISP derivitive, Python, etc.

You use the right tool for the job. .NET is a different animal -- there's not a compelling reason to use VB.NET over C#. On the .NET side of things, you use whatever language you know and allows you to efficiently implement the code. That could be IronPython or LISP, if you choose, or it could be C# or VB.NET.

Re:So now it's ok to like VB?

[witwerg]

I maintain a few VB codebases for work. Only for the past 3 years or so, but, my experience has been the same. All those points are rather annoying.

The situation with boolean expression are a hair (and subtly) worse, I would argue. There is no short circuiting because there are NO LOGICAL operators. In fact, Boolean values are simply 0(all bits 0) and -1(all bits 1), and "not"/"and"/"or" are simply bitwise operators.

This can lead to some very strange issues if you aren't aware of it. Particuarlly when working with COM objects because there is nothing that normalizes boolean values to 0 or -1. I've seen third-party objects that will return 1(i.e. 00000001') for true instead of -1. This is initially ok because internally vb uses the true := non-zero rule applies, but when you do a negation the boolean is filled with '11111110' which is true. So logically in this case:

true := not true

Restating myself, all the issues are annyoing, but having to dip into the WINAPI and The exception handling are probably the most annoying for me.

The only really solution is developing your own work arounds and using other people's(or move to .NET). I have a couple VB addins I use in addition to a couple that I've written. VB Addin Programming seems inadequently documented... A friend and I also wrote some code that kludges object expection handling on top of the numeric errs that can be thrown, controlled by a global object (with decent optional but unrefined execution profiling).

Everything, though, is still rather ugly, but workable. While augments to VB do take some of the edge off, I too have been eyeballing Delphi.

Killer Application

[Anonymous Coward]

Rant and hiss all you want. This application has the potential to move an entire generation of mid-40ish "Windows and VB4 still works for me" people - who are basically stating the truth - to Linux / OSS enviroments.

And no Blahblah about Eclipse Basic being somewhere close to RAD or QTDevelop being a sort-of half way kinda RAD tool and "whats all the excitement about, I only need Perl and a few bazillion extra libs and dependency resoltions to write nice TK-Apps that are ugly as hell" will change that.

As for me, I'm sold. Congratulations to the Gambas team.

Re:Killer Application

[AbbyNormal]

Absolute Bingo. Nice post.

I see a major opportunity for Gambas and the hundreds (or thousands) VB/ASP shops that cannot afford to take the .NET plunge. An intermediary step would be a Godsend (with eventual consideration to a .NET interpreter..maybe).

There are only three items that are missing: MSSQL support, Windows environment support, ASP/Apache.

Even if companies do not decide to run it on a Linux platform, they would still want to switch their VB to Gambase because: a.) no lockin, b.) Support is ongoing. c.) Eventually they can upgrade to .NET (or Gambas writes a VB.NET Mono plugin).

I, and the many VB shops out there salute you Gambas (especially when you add the Perl Regex stuff). Great work, and PLEASE keep pushing for a Windows GTK version.

Looks Good

[ibentmywookie]

I haven't used it for a while, but back then it didn't have an MDI interface, which I didn't like.

I prefer all the windows to be under the control of a single parent window. I guess it's the same reason why the GIMP interface is kind of annoying.

However, on Linux, if you give the app it's own desktop to sit on, it's manageable.

project's aims (from site)

[mincognito]

This project aims at making a graphical development environment based on a Basic interpreter, so that we have a language like Visual Basic(TM) under Linux(TM). The phenomenal quantity of bugs and inconsistencies that makes Visual Basic so delightful persuaded me to start this project ;-) It seems that Microsoft is aware of the poor quality of its language, as VB .Net is not backward compatible with older versions of Visual Basic. I think they have thrown away the Visual Basic interpreter source code, and that VB .Net is just a .Net runtime compiler whose syntax looks like the Visual Basic one. Well, it's just my own opinion... ;-) I want to clear up any misunderstanding immediately. Gambas does not try to be compatible with Visual Basic, and will never be. I'm convinced that its syntax and internals are far better than the one's of its proprietary cousin ;-) I took from Visual Basic what I found useful : the Basic language, the development environment, and the easiness to quickly make programs with user interfaces. But I dislike the very bad level of common Visual Basic programmers, often due to bad pratices imposed by the bugs and strangeness of this language. So I will try to make Gambas as coherent, logical and reliable as possible, and I hope that Gambas programmers will make effort in return ! ;-) At the moment, I'm looking for programming help. The kernel of Gambas is now stabilized, if not well documented. There is a component example to help people learning how to write components. I hope other people will join me to help to increase the possibilities of the language. There is so much to do !

Re:project's aims (from site)

[mikeage]

So what tool do you use to put ;-) after every other sentence?

Cluttered IDE

[Osty]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't like the "spread-out" IDE layout they've got going on here. It reminds me too much of the GIMP, and not in a good way. Perhaps it's my Windows background, but I want a single window with toolboxes and sidebars inside that window (see Visual Studio or KDevelop). This "Let's have a bunch of floating windows with nothing tying them together" approach just makes me think the developers are trying to copy Mac apps rather than Windows apps, with the main drawback of not having a single app menu across the top of the screen to tie everything together (yes, I know that various desktop environments can optionally move app menus to the top of the screen, but how consistent are they? Will they keep the menu from the "Project" window up top when I have the "Toolbox" window focused? Do they know that the "Properties" window and code window are related, and should raise together?). I'm not saying that copying from either is bad or wrong, just that if you're going to do it, do it right.

Re:Cluttered IDE

[Lussarn]

I don't think they are copying either windows or mac, they are merely following what have been the unix way for the last 10 years. On unix we have virtual desktops and they are there to be used.

Re:Cluttered IDE

[Tarwn]

I agree with your sentiments, despite what other may say. That is/was the biggest turn off for Gimp for me. I actually find it to be an obstacle in using the program because there is nothing tying them together (maybe it's a coneptual gap, I don't like having to think about it every time). I don't necessarally need my applications to all have slide-out tool panes like Visual Studio, but a background container with the option to dock windows on the sides or toolbar does wonders for keeping all the various bits of the application together, allowing me to focus on doing what I am doing without accidentally switching focus to a browser or terminal I left open.
Sure once I get everything shuffled to another window I don't worry as much, and some people might be comfortable "outside the box" with their applications, but I would prefer to stay inside the box, thank you. I don't think this is a revolutionary interface design concept, I think it is an interesting one that doesn't quite work as well as was expected.

If I am going to work on an application then my preference would be to siomply work on it, without pausing every 5 seconds to think about where to find a toolbox i sent to the background. Now in window 3 of 4 and crap, did I lose 4 somewhere?
That's one of the elements I liked about Paintshop Pro: the floating, dockable, collapsible menus. Everything was kept in the one application area and you could pretty much put the boxes anywhere you wanted, but being inside that window made the toolboxes naturally belong to the application. Plus I could get more screen acreage simply by allowing them to collapse, without losing them into the background.

Re:Cluttered IDE

[raindog2]

Some of us who use and develop Gambas agree with you. I began work on an MDI IDE for Gambas a year and a half ago, and released actual working code, but the language was such a moving target at that time (version 0.57) that I had to abandon it. I hope to produce one for Gambas 1.0 in the near future, and Benoit plans to add MDI functionality to the IDE in the development series for 2.0.

if you want VB on Linux why not just use REALBasic

[GK_2002]

Consider that already REALBasic 5.5 is loads ahead of this project in that much of the syntax is VB like, yet you can release one app simulataneously on Mac OS 9, OS X, Windows and Linux.

I don't see the advantage here... sure it's not free software but it works DAMN well. I have created a few small utilites internally for my company as well as a little CD Cataloging program just to teach myself the ins and outs of the language, but for those times I want to make something run as a non-web based application for a Mac, this is how I plan to develop the software.

I don't believe...

[Vo0k]

I don't believe any open source solution in any near future could crush the Microsoft alternatives in the software development field.
The problem is that HERE marketing matters. Home users are free to pick a web browser or operating system of their choice. But when a big system for some business/industry is being developed, the platform decisione are made by the middle-to-upper management. And these guys really -believe- what Microsoft marketing people tell them. So the programmers, people who actually know a thing about the options don't really get the voice in most of the projects. "So... This guy at EXPO told me Visual Basic would solve all these problems. So we write the application in Visual Basic." There is no way the majority of the "big fishes" in programming could accept a hardly known free software language instead of the "famous, widely used Microsoft product" without the right marketing, and without some large funding behind the marketing...

Unless Sun, IBM or someone else with enough $$$ and not too much love for Microsoft backs up the project and takes care of marketing and promoting it. But the chances are very slim.

Worse than INTERCAL

[KiloByte]

The last time I used BASIC was 20 years ago, when I was six -- and I'll be damned if I ever come back.
We got so many programming languages -- good ones and bad ones, that is simply doesn't make any sense altogether to use a Cobol-lookalike. Repent, folks!

It may start here...

[wcitechnologies]

I think VB is a doorway for programmers who eventually get serious. Anybody who knows anything knows that VB isn't the language to program enterprise-class software. Still, VB is a good way to get the kids interested, and some of them grow up to be engineers. If this language really is the Linux equivelant to VB, you OSS guys should be happy, considering how this, (or something like this) may affect Linux's future.

Code monkey

[Uukrul]

Code monkeys do the best that they could as you can see graphically.

Funny wallpapers ...

[invi]

Oh well ... but they *do* have funny wallpapers ... and notice the clever placement of the windows, guess MDI has its advantages after all :)

Re:OO language

[Vo0k]

'cause OO is way easier for team writing and huge projects. It's way easier to split the project into many "single man" or "single small team" tasks, then bind them all together through an easy to use and strictly defined methods with well defined "responsiblity" areas. The difference isn't all that big, except of some "protectionism" (private, public), simplification of some processes (inheritance instead of notorious evil "copy&paste") and strict defining of "responsiblity areas" (objects), instead of guessing whether convert_hostname_to_lowercase() belongs to hostnameconv.h or tolowercase.h :)

Crush VB for database apps?

[Jugalator]

Now, if it ran in Windows too, it would truly crush VB for database applications.

Hrm.. Like the Windows flag is burnt?
I wonder if it was really that necessary to be so childish, right on their front page.

It doesn't help their cause anyway, or defeat generalizations about "Linux being for childish basement geeks".

Oh well... To my question: Why would it crush VB .NET 2003 for database apps? Do you mean db apps in general? Or just a specific kind of db apps? What's so revolutionary about this package in that area? I couldn't find anything on their Gambas feature list even mentioning databases, except:

"Finish and clean the database component."

Oh, the irony!

Tk getting a makeover

[DavidNWelton]

It's called "tile" and the goal is to make Tk look native on all platforms, in a 21st century sort of way.

http://tktable.sourceforge.net/tile/

Combine that with starkits, and you have 0 dependencies. Just distribute one file.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

One glance at your post tells me you are trolling. So one look at a screenshot that is probably meant to showcase as much of the application as possible tells you that it is cluttered and unusable?

I'm impressed.

I'm also getting tired of this constant whining about not doing it the MS way. Interestingly I never see these kind of complaints about OSX software, though even MS products are not using an MDI interface on OSX. So not doing it the MS way certainly doesn't say anything about the usability of an app.

Wow

[md81544]

Purists may smirk at this, being VB-like and all, but I just compiled this from source and had a play... it's incredibly well done. I'm really impressed. I'd love to see something like this which builds proper executables and allows C or C++ for the language.

I haven't had a chance to investigate further (should be working, after all!) but does anybody know what you need to distribute to get an app working on another box? Does the RPM it creates install all the required libs etc or do they need Gambas installed too?

VB with source

[oliverthered]

Well I have two problems with VB.

1: It's slow and easy to write bad code in so it shouldn't be used for anything other than a UI in a multi-tear system and shouldn't be used for large(anything more than a few hundred function points) systems.

Gambas is still slow, so no wins there.

2: VB was incredibly buggy, even for the things it was good for (rapid prototyping, simple to maintain UI's) it would sometimes crash for no apparent reason bot adding an extra hidden text box or a random print seemed to fix things.

With Gambas you have the source so all bugs are shallow.

Having said that there are plenty of good free Java tools out there like JBuilder foundataion or eclipse, so maybe basic has had it's day.

Can't even create the project...

[WWWWolf]

Okay, I installed 1.0 off Debian. I can't even create a new project, because the directory browser window in that step makes it very unclear what directory I'm trying to pick right now as the project directory. And, it won't even work otherwise: either it tells me to pick a valid directory (umm, I suppose I did?), won't let me pick a valid directory (I can choose it all right, but clicking on Next won't do anything!) or randomly picks "/" as the project directory, and it obviously fails because it can't create project there...

And on top of that, when I just started it up, tried to create a new directory in home directory, it actually created "New directory", then said it couldn't use that. Clicking on directories almost randomly didn't make things show up.

Then I had a bright idea: There were examples. I copied one off to a directory of my own. Tried opening it. It couldn't find the project from this directory at all.

At which project dpkg -r mysteriously nuked the whole thing and I just got back waiting for 1.0.2 or 1.1 or something.

I really hate to say this, but this experience sucked. This sort of lack of usability is completely inexcusable. The directory browing window was one of those horrible excuses of directory browsers stolen from Motif and nightmares.

I'm pretty certain the project looks good, and there's definitely a need for a good Basic-based RAD tool, but based on this horror story of mine, there's still some way to go before I can even try it.

Re:if you want VB on Linux why not just use REALBa

[anagama]

• Consider that already REALBasic 5.5 is loads ahead of this project in that much of the syntax is VB like, yet you can release one app simulataneously on Mac OS 9, OS X, Windows and Linux. ... sure it's not free software but it works DAMN well.

You're right it ain't free - It's $600 for the version that will work for all three OSes, or a grand if you want a 12 month subscription. Kind of steep for those of us who just fool around with computers for fun rather than work.

BS

[brunes69]

Loads of top-level tool windows is a usability nightmare. It os not intuitive at all, and a new user has a hell of a time figuring out what things are in what window.

There is a reason both the Gnome and KDE projects have HCI guidelines. And this app doesn't follow either of them.

Cluttered IDE

[Quixadhal]

I have to agree. I abhorr interfaces like the Gimp (which is a fine program, shackled with a not so fine UI), and find it far too easy to lose the various toolbars under other things. It might not be so bad if clicking on any one UI element would bring the entire thing to the top...

--off topic--

This just reminds me that Linux peope STILL can't develop their own breakthroughs. We STILL feel compelled to try and mimic whatever comes out of Redmond, or those fruity mac people (*grin*, my Mom has one so I feel justified in that jab).

What's the number one complaint people have with Microsoft's GUI? Inconsistancy. What's the one thing Linux (or any Open Source movement for that matter) will never really have? Consistancy. Yeah, call me a doomsayer, but as long as everyone clings to the adage of allowing everyone to code whatever they like, there will never BE a consistant standard interface on the Linux desktop.

Shoot, X is almost (more than?) 20 years old now and we still can't get a single consistant cut-and-paste buffer that works across every X application!

Sorry for the rant, but I'm just horrified that the desktop movement has made so little progress since I started using Linux back in 1994. Back then, an X11R5 desktop on a 486/66 with 16M of ram using TVTWM as a window manager would run circles around the equivalent win95 box. Now, every time I pull up X with KDE and type "free", I cringe seeing how much memory it sucks up. I use linux for my servers, and love it... but I use that other OS for my desktop as I don't have to fight with it every day.

Re:A better alternative

[marcovje]

Or try Lazarus:

http://lazarus.freepascal.org

VBRUN300.dll Not found?

[geminidomino]

For anyone who's never seen the error message above: can Gambas programs be compiled and distributed without being packed solid with loads of seperate controls and libraries? Or would the user have to download and install gambas him/herself?

Re:VBRUN300.dll Not found?

[kosmosik]

I think you can do anything you whish :) you have full source code access so you probably can compile a one static lib with everything in it...

Just one guy

[spectrokid]

I think it is amazing such a big project can be done by just one guy working on it part-time (read his personals). If he can do such a thing on his own, then how comes we haven't had super-duper RAD tools with IDE in Linux for years?

To all the cry babies

[codepunk]

I actually downloaded the source a few days ago and compiled and installed it. I find that it is a extremely well done VB like environement for linux. Any day I can get a decent programming ide complete with the source and licensed under the GPL it is a wonderful day.

1. The app uses multiple windows but guess what if you don't like that then make it a single window interface. The ide is written in gambus so a little refactoring and you can have a single window interface.

2. It is extremely complete for a 1.0 release and the design of the interpreter, debugger, libraries are all rather complete.

3. I can build a gui front end to a my sql table with barely a dozen lines of code.

4. The language is not actually VB it is improved and corrected VB.

5. It had a project packager that is extremely well done.

6. The forms designer is fairly top notch and easy to work with.

Ok when all you cry babies get done writing your own interpreter, compiler, ide and make it work even half as well come back and talk to me, till then shut up. No I have no involvment in the project other than using it a little but I applaud the developer for his efforts.

It is a gift people, treat it as such...

Re:An alternative approach: PyQt

[codepunk]

Dude I love python as much as the next python coder but QT designer does not actually support python natively does it? Last time I used it I could build a interface with it then I had to write a bunch of code to load the screens, set event handlers and a bunch of other crap. This gambas thing is one language but it is all integrated not a afterthought hack.

Gambas 1.0 - a free gift

[UglyMike]

God, you people can be such bastards....
Here is a guy, single handedly building a full, self-hosted, VB-like development environment on Linux as a gift to the community and all you people do is shit all over his project.
Why Basic? Why QT? Why MDI? Why funny pictures on the main page? Why not .NET?
Python is better! Realbasic is better! Mono is better!
It's open source for crying out loud!! Don't like MDI? Change it! (after all it is self hosting) Think REALBasic is better? Fine, go buy that then! Prefer Mono's VB? OK, sit around and wait a bit longer. Don't like the site's informal look? Where is your mockup of a better one then?
Let's face it. The only reason you're all bitching (most of you anyways..) is that you're too THICK to change any of it! I'm reading the developer forum and I see no patches coming in from any of you offering SDI, GTK+, .NET compatibility, Python plug-ins etc.
Bunch of ingrates....

Re:Gambas 1.0 - a free gift

[WinterSolstice]

No, big difference.
Movie critics are complaining about a multi-million dollar production they PAID to see.
Food critics are complaining about a meal they PAID to eat.

These idiots are like the bitch who goes to a potluck without anything to share, and just complains about all the food.

You don't have to like this stuff, you don't have to use this stuff, but you don't have to be a jerk about it.

Hell, I hate the layout of the SAPNet system, I hate the layout of the MSKB. But I pay to access them all the same. This guy? His stuff is at least free.

Personally, I like Gambas, and I like the site. I don't do BASIC much anymore, but I might actually try it out. After all, anything so many slashdotters compain about has to be good.

-WS

Re:Little behind the times?

[LnxAddct]

http://www.go-mono.com/mbas.html
Regards,
Steve

Re:Tcl Tk

[hobbs]

As noted in a previous response, Tk actually has a themed widget extension call tile:

http://tktable.sourceforge.net/tile/

This works well enough for production apps now, but it will also become part of the Tk core in the near future. They interoperate with all existing Tk widgets, and the extension works with Perl's Tcl::Tk binding and with Tkinter.

Even without that, it is not more than a dozen lines of code to polish up the look of most Tk apps, it is just that many don't put that last spit and polish step into their code.

On related news...

[Spy der Mann]

Cross-platform (non-RAD... yet) C++ IDE "codeblocks" (developed by a former Dev-C++ developer) version 1.0b4 was released yesterday.