Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

REALbasic Linux IDE Public Beta Available

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the it-all-seems-so-basic dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A brand-new visual development environment for Linux is in public beta now. REALbasic 2005 for Linux Standard Edition will be available for free when it ships in August. The company has also done away with their email registration requirement. Download the public beta now from REAL Software."

64 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. If you'd rather have a look first... by mogrify · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://realsoftware.com/products/

    --
    perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
    1. Re:If you'd rather have a look first... by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where is your faith?

      Slashdot says download, so you download!

      --
      Pretty Pictures!
    2. Re:If you'd rather have a look first... by HunterZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks. I can't believe the editors would be lazy enough to not only post a direct-download link, but also not add an information link. I hate when sites do that because it feels like they're cramming some new software down my throat when I'd rather read up on it first.

      --
      Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
    3. Re:If you'd rather have a look first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Why do I suspect this won't last long in its current form?

      Perhaps because you don't know anything about REALBasic? It's been around since the late 90's plugging away in its niche. It may not "take off" but it's not going away either.

    4. Re:If you'd rather have a look first... by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      And, it doesn't benefit REAL much to have a presumably multi-megabyte file downloaded left and right for everyone coming from slashdot, rather than the 100 KB or so worth of website where they could decide if downloading this was something they wanted to do. Elsewhere it wouldn't be too big of a deal, but having a multi-MB file by the link in a /. article is asking is a good way of trying to get REALsoftware.com slashdotted.

      by the way, REALbasic is really awesome. I've not used the new Linux or Windows hosted IDEs, but I have used the Mac IDE on OS 9 and OS X quite a bit, targeting Mac OS X, OS 9 and Windows. It's a fun little development environment, great for when you need to whip something up. More approachable (IMHO) than Visual Basic for someone who knows a bunch of "real" programming languages [1], but with little experience with fancy IDEs that needs to get some work done ASAP. Tiny learning curve, and the language supports some more "real" language features than VB6 (though not as many as VB.NET). All in all, I highly reccomended it.

      [1] not to call modern BASIC's non-real languages, but I just had to. :P

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    5. Re:If you'd rather have a look first... by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Like others have pointed out, RB isn't going to just disappear anytime soon. It's been around a while, and it fills an important niche in Mac OS X development. And, unlike Visual Studio, it targets Mac OS 9/X, Windows and Linux, which can be really darn handy sometimes. There are plenty of decent RAD environments for Windows, but not so much for Linux. There are some options for OS X, but RB is one of the most mature and easy to use ones around.

      RB isn't language compatible with anything else, but one thing to point out as far as your compatibility grips is concerned: RB has the handy feature of being able to import and export Visual Basic Form format files. A few times I've been handed a simple VB app that needed to be ported to the Mac, and using RB did it- with the look staying the same and requiring no time to redraw all the forms.

      No, it's not the tool for every job, and it's not my primary language. But even as a hardcore Smalltalk programmer, there are the occasional times when RB is really handy.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  2. Re:Zealots by grub · · Score: 1

    Well, this story is in the 'developers' section and this is a development tool...

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  3. I can hardly wait... by PixelCat · · Score: 3, Funny

    for the cognitive dissonance to set in. Linux and BASIC together.

    1. Re:I can hardly wait... by parvenu74 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While a slick desktop would help the quick adoption of Linux, being able to EASILY and quickly write ad hoc business applications from within linux will help more. The fact that you can write your apps using the Windows, Mac, or Linux IDE and then target all of the same will allow a company to make a gradual shift as well instead of balking at an all-or-nothing choice. Put this product right alongside Firefox and OpenOffice as tools that could seriously undermine the future hegemony of Microsoft on the business desktop.

  4. Re:Zealots by mogrify · · Score: 1

    It's cross-platform.

    Create native cross-platform software

    REALbasic 2005 runs on an creates software for Windows 98, NT, 2000 and XP, Mac OS X and Linux, all from a single set of source code. REALbasic incorporates platform-specific intelligence, like user interface widgets, so software created with REALbasic looks and feels native, regardless of the development platform you created it on.

    And from the FAQ:

    Why is REALbasic 2005 for Linux Standard Edition free?

    We pick the price for each product based upon many factors, including the price of competing products. Much of the software for Linux is available for free, including other development tools. Because of this, we have decided to make REALbasic 2005 for Linux Standard Edition for free. REALbasic 2005 for Linux Professional Edition is priced at $399.95, as are the Windows and Macintosh versions.

    --
    perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
  5. REALbasic iz gude. by Blacken00100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, it's a lot like VB, and yes, it's very, very odd, but it's an extremely useful programming tool. Recommended to anyone who needs quick and dirty cross-platform work.

  6. Re:RealBASIC by parvenu74 · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to the RealBasic website, the standard version for Linux is going to be free "because the linux community expects free stuff." Don't expect the source to be open, however.

  7. Good News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is good news.

    A while back I wrote to the Realbasic sales that they should offer another cheaper linux product -- one that allowed you to make binaries that required a valid Realbasic runtime. Thus, you might pay $50 or $100 for a compiler and IDE, but anyone else who wanted to run your code would also have to pay $50 or $100. I suggested to them that this would better allow hobbiests to build up a set of useful code that would make Real Basic much more desireable. I don't think they understood what I was trying to say.

    This is a better solution, in my opinion. I don't like the basic language but a lot of people use it; if it is popular, someone will write an open source compiler for it.

  8. packages? by kwoff · · Score: 1

    Is there a debian package I could try? Otherwise, it's probably not worth the time.

    1. Re:packages? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Is there a debian package I could try? Otherwise, it's probably not worth the
      > time.

      Your experience has shown you that software for which debian packages aren't available is generally not worth installing, or you can't be bothered to try what you appreciate could be an awesome piece of code? Windows users say the same thing about Linux, btw...

  9. Re:Zealots by metamatic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, a story about the Linux version of a set of cross-platform programming language developer tools, available for free download... must have been really hard to sneak such an inappropriate story onto the developer section of Slashdot, you fucktard.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  10. RealBASIC-OSLife. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "According to the RealBasic website, the standard version for Linux is going to be free "because the linux community expects free stuff.""

    So when is something like "Groceries for Linux", or "Gas for Linux" coming out?

  11. When are they gonna learn? by VStrider · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ok, I read the product description, saw the screenshots, and it looked like a really nice IDE. I know its proprietary and all, but I was eager to try it, even though since I moved to C/C++ I haven't touched VB for years. Anyway, the download finished, and I started the app.

    Then all of a sudden the app reminded me why I don't like proprietary software. A window pops up asking me for a licence or key with an option to continue on the demo. I chose this one.
    "Retrieving Demo key..." comes up...and I wait..."The key could not be retrieved cause the server timed out". Tried again to no avail. The software refused to start, so I happilly removed it from my disk.

    the server was probably /.ed but why do I need to retrieve a key for a demo product is beyond me. All they managed to do is annoy people who thought of trying their product.

    If you didn't want us to try your demo, then why do you advertise it on slashdot?
    If you did want us to try it, then why do you feel you need to fortify your demo with licence keys?

    You want your demo to reach as many people as possible, and this is just not going to happen. Good luck with your bussiness model, you'll need it.

    --
    VStrider.
    1. Re:When are they gonna learn? by gellenburg · · Score: 3, Informative

      As someone who was part of the RB'2005 beta program I can at least explain to you why you have to get a key from the server. ;-)

      The linux version is a PUBLIC BETA. Expect new (beta) releases quite often.

      Each demo key (which is really a beta key) has a finite expiration period and once it expires will not be renewed. This is to encourage you to always be running the latest version when you report problems.

      As someone who has just upgraded to RB'2005 Professional for the Mac today, I *can* assure you that your actual license does NOT expire.

      Also, you may receive different licenses depending on what testing is occuring. Standard features as opposed to Pro features, etc.

    2. Re:When are they gonna learn? by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Hey! Shut up, you! He hates proprietary software! It is teh sux0r! And don't you forget it!

      The time he lost waiting for the license to be retrieved probably more than makes up for the time of chasing down one goofed up pointer in a C++ app... *shrug*

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  12. They understood by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

    and realized that wasn't a good idea. I'm not going to pay $100 to run some hobbyist's code. If he wants to sell it to me direct, that might be another story, but to get a hobbyist's program that requires I shell out $100 to someone else is a non-started.

    VB took off because the system would package all the necessary stuff into one installer. If the realbasic system would compile into 3 installers (mac/linux/windows) that'd be very handy. I'd certainly shell out $50 to be able to write and distribute cross-platform gui apps.

    --
    creation science book
    1. Re:They understood by Electrum · · Score: 2, Informative
      If the realbasic system would compile into 3 installers (mac/linux/windows) that'd be very handy.

      It does, if you get the professional version:

      REALbasic Professional Edition lets you create software for Windows, Linux and Macintosh from a single code base.
      I'd certainly shell out $50 to be able to write and distribute cross-platform gui apps.

      It's more expensive than that, but well worth it considering that it's the only easy to use, cross platform development environment that creates native, single executable programs.
    2. Re:They understood by gabebear · · Score: 1

      Yep,
      it's $100 for the "standard edition" and $400 for the "professional edition". For what I would use this for I doubt I would care $300 worth about the pro features(sql plugin, better debugger, good autoinstaller).

      I played with the RealBasic demo back in OS8, but I haven't tried it in recent history.

    3. Re:They understood by gabebear · · Score: 1

      You are correct, it doesn't look like their is an autoinstaller. I was thinking of the cross-compile ability of the pro version(the standard can only compile for the platform it's running on).

      The Linux Standard version is free but you still have to buy Windows/OSX standard versions seperately at $100 a pop.

  13. Yeah, this is what we want... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...people who are barely able to understand the concept of good programming practices having access to a tool which supports none of these. Then let them produce, with ease, the shoddy, buggy programs to enable Linux to challenge Microsoft for the honor of crappiest computing platform.

    Face it, business analysts and venture capitalists: Programming, if not an art, is certainly a skill which takes a certain level of talent and expertise to be competent. If you're competent, you'll learn it. If not, you shouldn't have any business producing defective applications. Any more than having a non-electrician do electrical wiring. Certainly, there is no reason to help propagate a crutch, designed before the concept of procedural programming (another dinosaur), just so that incompetents are better able to plague users with shoddy programs.

    At this point in the game, with environments like java, mono, and python, there is no reason to introduce a flawed language like BASIC into the mainstream. The ones capable of learning BASIC, are capable of learning one of the above. If they don't want to, it probably means they're too stupid to, and should be culled out of developing applications.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    1. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by parvenu74 · · Score: 1

      At this point in the game, with environments like java, mono, and python, there is no reason to introduce a flawed language like BASIC into the mainstream.

      There's no *reason* to introduce Linux into the mainstream either, for that matter. But a quick and dirty programming environment allowing marginal programmers to make adequate apps today is good. And for an elite programmer like you, it's even better because when these marginal apps need to be upgraded to something "real" then you have a client who pays real cash money for your elite experience.

      So which is more important to you: a "superior" but not-accepted-in-the-mainstream desktop platform like Linux, or the introduction of a tool that puts the creation of simple desktop apps easily within reach of novices? What is your ideal solution?

    2. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by Electrum · · Score: 4, Informative
      ...people who are barely able to understand the concept of good programming practices having access to a tool which supports none of these

      Nice FUD:
      REALbasic 2005 is a modern, object-oriented language and environment, so C++ developers feel right at home. Familiar concepts such as polymorphism, object references and exception handling are supported with a clean, modern syntax.
      You can write bad code in any language. However, REALbasic fully supports good programming practices.
    3. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by multiplexo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Every once in a while I forget why I hate software developers so much and then I read a post like this and remember, it's because so many of them are such arrogant fucktards who are convinced that because they sat through a bunch of brain-hammeringly dull CS courses that they somehow have become members of God's own IT elite.

      True story: I used to work for a major internet retailer as a UNIX systems engineer/administrator. This major internet retailer, named after a large river, had a warehouse in Seattle. The warehouse operations manager was a very smart cookie, not a programmer or developer, but still very smart. One day this manager needed a tool to check shipment status, he requested this from the software developers, but they were too busy wanking over "good programming practices" (whatever those are, from a plurality of the developers I've worked with it seems that their good practices are "overpromise and underdeliver", "blame the hardware" and avoid being oncall if at all possible) to develop this for him. So this warehouse operations manager went and got himself a PERL book and sat down and wrote a tool that did what he wanted it to do.

      When the software developers found out about this they were aghast. Aaaaacccckkkk! Someone other them then writing a tool, a member of the unwashed actually coding, God forbid! Of course the developers found a lot to bitch about in his tool, it wasn't very good PERL they said, it ran out of his home directory, it beat the shit out of the database and our NetApp filers, etc, etc, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda. But all of them missed one point, if they had gotten off of their asses and used all of the good programming practices that developers keep nattering on about to develop the tool he requested he wouldn't have had to sit down and write this thing (which really wasn't that bad, he had followed the style that most PERL books use in their example code). If they had done their jobs he wouldn't have had to do theirs (as well as his).

      Of course I worked with lots and lots of people who called themselves software developers who wrote code that pounded our systems to their knees by running full table scans against databases, writing vital log files to a directory that was NFS mounted from a personal Linux workstation, leaking memory, running out of control and pegging the CPU, etc, etc, etc, etc, and they were writing most of their code in C and C++, those darling languages of those who call themselves professional software developers.

      I guess what I'm trying to say is "go fuck yourself you arrogant prick!" You're not as smart as you think you are. You're not as good of a programmer as you think you are and you obviously know nothing about REALBasic (it ain't GWbasic or even Vbasic) and if it helps users get their job done then it's a good thing in my book, even if it isn't in yours.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    4. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by abradsn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Let's keep the good programming statements in perspective. I like linux, and use it regularly but it still has its own share of problems, with abscence good programming being one of them.
      Linux applications are not usually known for good programming.
      • What about the millions of shell scripts that are just bad by virtue of being scripted into existance?
      • Have you seen the innerworkings of some of these linux applications. They are not (for the most part) examples of good programming.
      • Poor documentation (yes this is part of programming.
      • Inadequate quality assurance (based on the release early, release often model.
      • No standard structure to applications.
      • Applications and drivers need to be recompiled every time something changes. Dependencies seem to change at an alarming rate too.
      • Damn near zero backwards compatibility.
      • No upgrade path. (that works -- often the update facilities just screw things up)
      • Desktop environments with incompatible api running on the same system, forcing developers to not be able to take advantage of a target desktop.
      • Horrible Virtual memory support.

      The ones that are good examples were generally created first by a commercial software house.
      ie.) PostgresSQL was done well enough that I was able to figure out the architecture without documentation fairly quickly.

      Though, I do agree with your main point, about java, mono, and python being better alternatives.

      Also, I do agree that better applications programming skills are needed, and things like source forge and the oss model help young programmers to learn how to more effectively become experienced programmers.
    5. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by torpor · · Score: 1

      ...people who are barely able to understand the concept of good programming practices having access to a tool which supports none of these. Then let them produce, with ease, the shoddy, buggy programs to enable Linux to challenge Microsoft for the honor of crappiest computing platform.

      we talking about RealBASIC, or gcc here?

      And besides, people writing crappy apps is no reason not to allow those who will write superlative ones to have such easy to use tools at their disposal. Where is the logic in that?

      oh, unless, in fact, the idea of there being a massive pool of interesting new, easily-written apps, for Linux, is abhorrent to you, in which case i'll have to light a match to your astroturf...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    6. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by seweso · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well basic was very important for Microsoft. Linux should become more accesible to more people if it wishes to compete. Not every programmer is as good but not every program has to be very good. For RAD these tools are very capable. Personally I loved how fast you could build an application in MS Access. To each its own

    7. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by mvdw · · Score: 1
      You forgot:
      • Missing end parantheses
    8. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by TampaDeveloper · · Score: 1

      Ya know... You are right. The problem is that young developers tend to want to treat everything as a wrench. But hopefully, sometime in the career of those developers, they will realize that bicycles are for the sidewalk and cars are for the road. A car has a high cost, but can go fast. If you try to use it on a sidewalk, its likely to get stuck since its too wide. Vice versa, a bicycle would not be good on the expressway because its not fast enough

      It sounds like the operations manager wanted a bicycle and the IT department responded with, "We can't afford to buy you a car right now." This is a problme all too common in big corporations. I saw this all the time when I worked at a large German corporation that rhymes with MindBlurPieSlur.

    9. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the operations manager wanted a bicycle and the IT department responded with, "We can't afford to buy you a car right now."

      The thing is, if you rush out an app just to "get it done", it can become a maintenance nightmare that nags the developers long after it was written and the developer gets blame. That perl example mentioned might run, but it may not be easy to maintain. I once tried to perform changes on a spreadsheet with VBA macros built by a power user, and it was peice of crap. It did it's original job, but it was time-consuming to add changes to. A lot of software expense, perhaps most, is maintenance (changes), not original creation. If you rush creation by sacrificing service-ability, you crank up the maintenance costs.

      It sounds like the problem the other poster described is really lack of sufficient resources. A backlog is a backlog, and more amature hacked-together apps are not going to help in the long run. (They might want to toss C/C++. Those may be CPU-friendly, but don't make development very fast IMO.)

      Sure, there is some prickiness to many developers, but the story and blame is probably more complex than that. I will fault them for their rudeness (programmers tend not to be people-friendly if you haven't noticed), but not necessarily their decision-making.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    10. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by counterplex · · Score: 1

      multiplexo,

      Lie down here and tell me about your mother...

      --
      $x = ($x * 10) % 10 >= 5 ? 1 + int $x : int $x
    11. Re:Yeah, this is what we want... by egriebel · · Score: 1
      It's a friday, so I'll bite on the flamebait. Being a developer for a number of years now, I'll admit that there are a lot of prima donna developers, and people who use tools solely because they're cool. But, it's ironic that you call programmers "arrogant fucktards" when system administrators can be some of the biggest hurdles to developers getting things done (or, "speedbump on the road to success" if you prefer). True anecdotes:
      • You need this software installed? Sorry, it's not on the approved list and I don't make exceptions.

      • You need apache installed? That's that "freeware" junk that people write in their spare time, and we can't install software that we don't have a megabuck support contract for.

      • You need a version of java less than 3 years old? Sorry, we haven't tested a newer version of it for compatibility, and even though Sun has the patch out for over a year now, our group hasn't blessed it yet. I'll put it on the list to get in the testing lab, but there's a few month backlog.

      • You need this web server installed? It is on the approved list, but that would involve running a server process, and that's not allowed because all servers are security risks, even though it's inside the firewall.

      • You have a runaway process on a development server and you know the exact PID? I'd be happy to kill it, just enter a trouble ticket and I'll get right on it.

      • You need the website www.GreatDeveloperSite.com un-blocked? If I had my way, I would block everything and make people provide a business justification for every website they wanted to access.

      • You say the production server isn't working? Funny, I didn't notice a problem when I was just resizing a disk array. In the middle of the day. On a production system.

      • You want to be able to edit your own .profile? Sorry, it's a security risk and is not allowed.

      • You need an approved critical bugfix implemented that's affecting external customers? Not a problem, I was just leaving for lunch, but I'll take care of it as soon as I get back.

      • You need to change one line in a configuration file? No problem, just fill out a development request form, create a test plan and demonstrate successful execution on development and qa environments, create an implementation request form and get it approved by 2 levels of your and my management, and forward your release installation package with documented pre-installation, installation, post-installation, and backout scripts that follow the corporate naming and script-writing standards. (Ok, I am exaggeraging with this one, it was actually a one-line change in a stored procedure.)
      SAs routinely become apoplectic when a developer merely suggests the command(s) to use to get something done. How dare a developer, who has been using Unix for 10 years, say how to do something when they haven't even attended a training class. Especially to a snot-nosed junior SA fresh out of ITT Tech.

      Not knowing you personally, none of this may apply to you specifically, but there's a reason that developers (and users) prepend "Nazi" to the title "System Administrators". Oh yeah, there might be a lesson about glass houses in here somewhere too.

      --
      ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
  14. Gambas free software IDE with BASIC by free2 · · Score: 1

    Gambas is an easy and free software IDE with BASIC:
    http://gambas.sourceforge.net/

    1. Re:Gambas free software IDE with BASIC by BlueLightning · · Score: 1

      The problem with Gambas is you can't use it to develop proprietary software without purchasing a Qt licence, which is currently very expensive for the kinds of people who would want to use it for commercial development.

    2. Re:Gambas free software IDE with BASIC by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      The problem with Gambas is you can't use it to develop proprietary software without purchasing a Qt licence
      Hardly a problem. If you want to develop proprietary software, why shouldn't you contribute in some other way to the developers of the software that you're building upon?
      which is currently very expensive for the kinds of people who would want to use it for commercial development.
      Presumably it's very expensive for the kinds of people who would want to use it for non-commercial development. I doubt Microsoft would have a problem forking over the cash for a license, some how.

      It's a barrier, but not a serious one. Someone expecting to earn a living from proprietary, sold, software isn't going to have an issue paying for the QT license fee. For all but the cheapest, they'll spend far more on hardware over five years than on QT. This, for the most part, leaves the odd hobbyist expecting to supplement their income with $5 here and there from some kind of shareware. Realistically, they're not actually going to supplement their income at all, they're just producing stuff that's infinitely less valuable to end users than it could be, while exploiting TrollTech's code. I don't think there's a real problem in practice with the license being just as high for these people. It discourages stupid decisions.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Gambas free software IDE with BASIC by TampaDeveloper · · Score: 1

      It always amazes me that I can be so interested in something, yet learn about a new product that looks so cool.

      This product shows alot of promise. But to me it completely misses the point because it is not cross platform. Why would anybody whom is interested being a software developer choose a development tool that was only available for one OS?

      The other problem is that I hate when applications have a million little unmanaged windows floating around. Try using this product on a 12.1 inch laptop LCD and you'll quickly realize that docking windows have a purpose.

    4. Re:Gambas free software IDE with BASIC by free2 · · Score: 1

      there is an mdi version but virtual desktops can be used too

  15. ummm: clue. by torpor · · Score: 1

    RealBASIC has been around a loooooooooong time, and many very fine, very nice MacOS/OSX Apps were developed using its tools.

    I would not be so hasty to predict its demise: RealBASIC coming to Linux is really only news because it didn't happen, oh, say 10 years ago (it could've).

    In other words: This ain't no Kylix, yo!

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:ummm: clue. by Virus1984 · · Score: 1

      Yet you're very careful not to name any.

      I won't either, but, in the true /. spirit, I can provide a link: http://realbasic.com/community/designawards/2005/.

      "Made with REALbasic" != "Absolute crap, guaranteed"

      --
      Don't forget to think different.
    2. Re:ummm: clue. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      No, it couldn't have, as realsoftware didn't exist ten years ago.
      I remember reading a review of an early version of "REAL Basic" in Personal Computer World. Back when I read PCW. In the 1980s. The company was founded by the original inventors of BASIC from what I remember, and beyond that I can't remember much about the review.

      Whether the company selling it was "RealSoftware" or not I can't comment upon, but at worst, this'd be like saying that I couldn't have gotten my cellphone service from Cingular five years ago because Cingular didn't exist five years ago.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:ummm: clue. by anno1602 · · Score: 1

      http://realbasic.com/community/designawards/2005/
      "Made with REALbasic" != "Absolute crap, guaranteed"

      A design award won by REALbasic applications is not indicative of the quality of software developed in REALbasic if the award is for REALbasic apps only.

    4. Re:ummm: clue. by Virus1984 · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to get a list of high-quality REALbasic apps in a hurry, and to make clear that being developed in REALbasic doesn't imply ending as a pile of crap. Forget the award, just take a look at each of these apps; most are commercial-quality apps, made by very small dev teams.

      --
      Don't forget to think different.
    5. Re:ummm: clue. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      I think you mean TrueBasic.

      It's still around, but it's $39.95 for a Win32/Mac version, and $19.95 for an old DOS/Mac version (for the lowest edition).

    6. Re:ummm: clue. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      You are correct, and I'm an idiot. Sorry about that.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  16. Re:Zealots by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 1

    Word of warning: The Linux Standard Edition, which I haven't tried out, probably will only produce binaries for Linux. Or at least that's how it is with the Standard Edition for Windows (which is not free, but existing Windows VB developers can get a free license by filling out a form on RealBASIC's website--if they're still doing that). It *can* make binaries for other operating systems, but they will include a "demo warning" dialog upon startup.

    --
    R.Mo
  17. CUPS? by DoktorSeven · · Score: 1

    $ ldd REALbasic2005Beta | grep found

    libcups.so.2 => not found

    Some of us don't have a damn printer, you know, and don't want or need one...

    *grumble grumble emerge cups bitch moan*

    --
    This is a sig. Deal with it.
    1. Re:CUPS? by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      Ew. And some of us use lpr-ng for remote printing, which blocks cups...

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
  18. People are not happy with this release. by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    There has been very negative discussion of RB 2005 at the comp.lang.basic.realbasic newsgroup. There are many people who aren't happy about the path that has been taken. The new "development environment-as-a-web browser" paradigm they embraced falls flat on its face, according to some. And there have been scathing suggestings that RB 2005 has lost all of the uniqeness REALbasic'ers were used to in the past. Now it's just a lousy Visual Basic clone, according to some.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:People are not happy with this release. by TampaDeveloper · · Score: 1

      Haha. I was one of the beta testers. I don't send bug reports on obvious things like "Can't open new project", etc. Every few months I would download a new beta and play with it. I would quickly come to the conclusion that 1) The bugs are too obvious to report on, and 2) This thing is not yet at a point where it would be a productive environment.

      Well, to make a long story short, I decided it was not at a point of being productive a few weeks before they shipped the "final" version. I highly doubt they could cover enough ground to make it a useable product. The day after their release, they kicked me out of the beta program for "lack of participation." I explained to them that its very counter-productive to have millions of bug reports on obvious and fundamental problems. The code has to first reach a certain level of maturity before it can properly enter a beta status. IMO it had not yet reached that point. They would not hear of it. All I can figure is that they wanted me to report bugs like; "There is no code written yet for the window that is supposed to show me what events a component responds to."

    2. Re:People are not happy with this release. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Really not hard to see why you got kicked out of their beta program - you've missed the entire point. There is no such thing as a bug that is "too obvious to report on". Did it never occur to you that, perhaps, those bugs that seemed "obvious" to you might have been anything but to someone else? Different people use different pieces of software in different ways. I'm a developer, and I can't tell you how many times I've gotten bug reports where people described ways of using the software that seemed completely bizarre to me, but that seemed totally normal and obvious to the people who reported them. They couldn't imagine why we let such an obvious bug slip; I couldn't imagine how they ever thought of doing that in the first place. This happens. It's normal. That's what beta testers are for. You didn't do your job; no wonder they kicked you out.

      And what kind of bullshit is "the code first has to reach a certain level of maturity before it can properly enter a beta status"? What the hell are you talking about? Software is beta when its developer says it is beta, and they usually say it is beta when they are done adding features to it.

    3. Re:People are not happy with this release. by TampaDeveloper · · Score: 1

      Ok, Aaron, I disagreed with you the first time you gave that lame excuse. I've been in the situation that your company has put its developers in. "We're sending your code to QA because we've got a deadline, despite the fact that they are just going to report stuff that you are most certainly aware of." Aaron; please ask your management to listen to its developers, and other developers that volunteer to assist you with your product for free. We KNOW what we are talking about.

    4. Re:People are not happy with this release. by TampaDeveloper · · Score: 1

      ooops... lets try this again...

      Ok, Aaron, I disagreed with you the first time you gave that lame excuse. I've been in the situation that your company has put its developers in. "We're sending your code to QA because we've got a deadline, despite the fact that they are just going to report stuff that you are most certainly aware of, even though it just further slows down the development process."

      Aaron; please ask your management to listen to its developers, and other developers that volunteer to assist you with your product for free. We KNOW what we are talking about.

  19. Re:Zealots by TampaDeveloper · · Score: 1

    ...Because of this, we have decided to make REALbasic 2005 for Linux Standard Edition for free. Haha. RealSoftware really is on to something. I wish I could make software for free. I could sell it for alot less without that development cost.

  20. That is unbelievable! by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    If it weren't for those other reports of such blatant misfunctionality, I don't think I would believe what you wrote (not that I mistrust you, personally). I have to wonder how they plan for this project to be successful, especially if they are alienating all of their existing users, and most likely not impressing any of the new ones.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  21. The Register has an article ... by slapout · · Score: 1

    ...with more details:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/15/realbasic_ 2005_ships/

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  22. OSS Question by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    How come there is not a working VB-like OSS project? I am not complaining here, just wondering why the top selling development product (for good or bad) has not generated interest in similar OSS project? What are the forces and trends behind this odd disconnect?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:OSS Question by hosecoat · · Score: 1

      in fact its never been fully implemented.

  23. Re:Good fucking lord... Fuck off. by kwoff · · Score: 1

    I don't have patience to compile every new application that claims to be the next greatest thing, and instead I prefer to wait until someone thinks it's worthy enough to bother creating a debian package for. So for that, you tell me to fuck off. Maybe when your mentality has advanced beyond highschool you'll have a different perspective on things.

  24. There's a reason basic is dying by GanryuMVP · · Score: 1

    Settle down their buddy. It's true the parent did come off as an arrogant ass, but his point echoes what a lot of others think. For many years now developers have been waiting for basic to die, even though it "supports good programming practices" it certainly doesn't encourage them. With the introduction of C# most of us thought visualbasic was on it's way out and we'd finally be free of basic family languages.

    I have no doubt the realsoftware people are extremely talented but i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who just wishes they'd let basic die already.

  25. Re:Yeah, this is what we want...Error handling. by abradsn · · Score: 1

    I agree. Though I think better QA integration will help there. And the linux community has been a big proponent of fixing that.