REAL Software announced that the next version of REALbasic will generate native applications for Linux (in addition to Mac Classic, Mac OS X and Windows). The IDE is not ported, you will have to cross-compile a Linux binary. And they now have a Visual Basic migration tool that will help developers port their VB applications to these other platforms.
REAL Software Announces Linux, VB Strategy
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
A FAQ about the planned support for Linux in REAlbasic is available here:
http://www.realbasic.com/support/linux_faq.html
—-
Matt Quagliana
Director of Sales
REAL Software
Hi, I am an Apple user. I like Apple because I dont want to think about my computer, I want it to just work. I am the kind of user that when my tech support person says to me “Go to the finder” I want to have no idea what he/she is talking about.
Get the picture?
That said, I have always been interested in programming. I find AppleScript very complex for my liking. What I wonder is, would I be able to program my own Applications using RealBasic? I would really love to.
Thanks!
This is cool. I think Apple is making a big mistake by not embracing this technology, and making a huge deal about it. VB is what makes Windows popular in IT departments. A quick and easy way to make database front ends. If they could port that software to a cross development environment, perhaps other platforms could have a chance at becoming a “Standard”. Hark! LINUX AND APPLE fans. Basic has always had a huge following! C++/Cocoa et cetra are great, but are not always the answer for all problems. When you have an unrealistic deadline you need basic. REALBasic is also nice because you don’t get the DLL hell like you do with VB!
I’ve developed in RealBasic for MacOS X and the Win32 counter part. It works good. I’ve used it to develop 3d content and also 2d gaming content. It takes some getting used to, but it’s easy.
I need to upgrade to the newest release. I like using it and it’s nice to have one code base to work from on the desktop. Yep, I also make C++ programs using Apple’s DevKits, but wow, it’s very easy to slap an application together in RB.
If they had a PocketPC compatible run-time environment, wow I could do all my work in it. -heh
-ArcWave
p.s. I also develop for Tao-Group’s Intent for creating PocketPC games and cell phone games (in C/C++).
>That said, I have always been interested in programming. I >find AppleScript very complex for my liking. What I wonder >is, would I be able to program my own Applications using >RealBasic? I would really love to.
I think that the syntax for AppleScript can be confusing at first. If you are looking at getting into programming for the Macintosh, RealBasic IS the place to start. Basic is a language that is good for new programmers. RealBasic is a very good implementation of Basic. Just be sure to get a good book.
Good luck!
Does microsoft Office for mac osx support vba (visual basic for appications)?
“Does microsoft Office for mac osx support vba (visual basic for appications)?”
Quick Answer: YES
I think you can use REALbasic for some things as well.
If you are interested in a open source VB like app for linux have a look at gambas. This project has come a very long way in a short time with database support etc. http://gambas.sourceforge.net/
yes, in office X you have the choice of using the vba editor or the REALbasic editor for development. I find the vba enviroment in office X a bit primitive compared to the enviroment in Office xp.
If you want to use this stupid programming language, you can use mbas (the VB.NET compiler of the mono project). But IMHO the C#, Object Pascal (FPC, Kylix), C++, Python are far better then Basic.
$400 ouch, I’ll pass.
“This is cool. I think Apple is making a big mistake by not embracing this technology, and making a huge deal about it.”
Apple isn’t developing real basic so really REAL Software should promote it which they could easily do. I think real software should promote it which im guessing they might do when they put out the Linux version. To be honest yes C++,Objective-C,etc. are better than basic, but if i want to make a small program quickly then i’ll use basic.
Basic is really for new programmers because it’s probably the easiest language you can design gui apps with. To be honest I can’t figure out the Linux IDE’s so basic would probably be the best way to start there.
On Mac OS X however im getting used to Cocoa & Objective-C and I will probably use it more in the long run because of the benifets of the framework. The only thing i don’t like about realBASIC is that you have to purchase the pro version to be able to compile for muliple os’s (win & mac) or else your stuck developing your app for different versions of the os your on (win – 98,me,nt,2000,xp or mac – os 8,9,X.) It’s funny though how apple’s store lists realBASIC @ $99 and realsoftware lists the same thing @ $120 something.
Is this really the sort of thing we want? In my experience, software written in VB is extremely poor software. This is (generally) because the programmer doesn’t know any other “real” languages and thus has a poor comprehension of programming techniques.
There is enough crappy software on windows, I for one don’t want to see it in the linux environment.
>If you want to use this stupid programming language, you can >use mbas (the VB.NET compiler of the mono project). But IMHO >the C#, Object Pascal (FPC, Kylix), C++, Python are far >better then Basic.
I think you are just spouting off this nonsense without ever really using RealBasic. It is one of the finest development tools/languages I’ve used.
The RealBasic language is Basic, but it is also object oriented and works a lot like Java in some respects. It is a very good product…
The $400 price tag looks high, but the Mac-only versions are a lot cheaper especially if you are a student.
BASIC — Bah! No need for such a crippled language…
The FAQ isn’t very clear IMHO.
It says the whole language will be supported, but they still need to determine which controls they can do.
Does this mean a program will run but might not display have f its UI?
Another thing is, which platform/architecture?
It says nowhere for which architecture this crosscompiling works.
Does the Mac IDE create Linux PPC code and the Windows IDE Linux x86 code?
Are they both able generate both architectures?
Shame that swing is so complicate and about the memory footprint of running apps, but I have got the same IDE at work (NT) and at home (Linux) and it works great and I (right or wrong) I trust sun’s commitment to multiplatform support.
Okay, so you can write applications on a Mac or Windows:
1) how good is the cross-platform support? Is much recoding needed, or does it compile for the other platform(s) without any changes?
2) Compiling a GUI application for a Linux target – which toolkit does it use and what dependency issues are there (e.g., kylix required (required?) bespoke library files to be somewhere on the machine before the binary would run – is this so here, or would you be able to compile a stand-alone)?
>Is this really the sort of thing we want? In my >experience, software written in VB is extremely poor >software. This is (generally) because the programmer >doesn’t know any other “real” languages and thus has a >poor comprehension of programming techniques.
>There is enough crappy software on windows, I for one >don’t want to see it in the linux environment.
Typical elitist remark from a Linux user. You think there is crappy software on windows? Half the GUI apps under Linux don’t even work propertly and the other half are not worth bothering with. You guys can’t even agree on a standard clipboard.
I am a C++ programmer. I write embedded OS’s and some Mac and Windows Apps. On the PC I started with Borland C++ went to Otima++/Power++ then to C++ Builder. I like RAD. I started using REALBasic two years ago and can state this:
It is the BEST crossplatform solution out there.
The UI elements are completly cross platform (Mac/Win) with the exception of the toolbar. Everyday software offers an inexpensive cross platform class to address this.
If you do not make any API calls (which you rarely need since the controls set is very rich), you simply check the Generate Windows and Mac boxes and it builds both apps completely.
The design tool is excelent (I wish they did REALC++) and the BASIC is object oriented and fairly complete.
The only things that are missing are oddly enough – the Combo box and structures. For the latter you can use a class for 95 % of what you would want a structure for. As to the formor – I use a popup menu combined with an edit field and one line of code – but it is a shame that they do not have it. But looking at where they are in the feature list I would not be surprised if this was not corrected in the next version.
Performance is good enough. I can write faster executables in C/C++, but it takes far longer to write them and is generally not worth it. Most GUI programs are not noticable slower written in REALBasic.
I do not know how complete their Linux version will be, but when they added windows, it workded pretty good from the begining, and now it works great.
I am not a BASIC fan, but I chose to develop with REALBasic when I can, because the development is so much faster and easier than the alternative. Yes, I would still buy a good Cross Platform RAD C++, but right now that does not exist CPLAT is the best I have tried and it works good, but REALBasic is better for crossplatform.
By the way I tried Visual BASIC and hated it, so do not discount RB if you did not like VB.
You guys can’t even agree on a standard clipboard.
Ah, please, of course there is.
Just repeating someone else’s wrong assumption doesn’t make it correct.
You know, every time I think about REALbasic, my perceptions of its quality are tempered by this web page:
http://www.perversiontracker.com
Then again, it is easy to use, esp. if you are a beginner. That’s probably why there are so many bad softs out there that use RB, but I have used a good RB app before. But I’ve used many a bad one, too. And a bad RB app is just…*shudder*
Is this really the sort of thing we want? In my experience, software written in VB is extremely poor software. This is (generally) because the programmer doesn’t know any other “real” languages and thus has a poor comprehension of programming techniques.
There is enough crappy software on windows, I for one don’t want to see it in the linux environment.
The quality of the code depends only on the programmer not the language. The choice of the language depends on what you want to do, all programming languages have their pros and cons, no one is going to write a 3d engine in vb, but if your just going to process forms for example it’s a lot faster to develop with vb than with c++.
Currently you can generate Mac executables on windows and vice-versa. I have been told that the IDE will not be ported to Linux immieiatly, but would initialably be a cross-compile target only. This is the way the Windows development went. Version 3.5 supported generating windows applications, but it was not until version 5.0 that you could run the IDE on Windows. It is my belief that it will take a revision or two to bring the IDE to Linux.
I have been told that the IDE will not be ported to Linux immieiatly, but would initialably be a cross-compile target only.
Yes that’s in their FAQ, but the important info which architectures for Linux they (plan to) support is not.
Its like they assume Linux is tied to a particular platform like Windows or MacOS are.
It says nowhere for which architecture this crosscompiling works.
The first release will support x86 only. I think that’s on the FAQ; if not, it should be.
Does the Mac IDE create Linux PPC code and the Windows IDE Linux x86 code?
Are they both able generate both architectures?
The Windows version can generate Mac apps and vice versa. The compiler code is not platform-dependent.You’ll be able to build apps for any version of Linux we support whether you’re running the IDE on Mac or Windows.
Its like they assume Linux is tied to a particular platform like Windows or MacOS are.
No, it’s like we are supporting the most popular version first instead of wearing ourselves out trying to do everything at once.
Compiling a GUI application for a Linux target – which toolkit does it use
GTK.
Mars Saxman
compiler guy at Real Software
The first release will support x86 only. I think that’s on the FAQ; if not, it should be.
It wasn’t the last time I checked, so thank you very much for clarfiying that.
I think support for other architectures than x86 is extremly important for any software development tools, as Linux will very likely be deployed a lot in thin client environments and their servers might be something “big”.
If I understand correctly REALBasic is mostly about GUI applications, so do you have any enginieers/developers lurk on the main mailinglist of freedesktop.org?
A lot of work regarding desktop integration and interoperability happens there and your participation, even if it is just passive, will be great servie to your customers, who’s apps will benefit from playing nicely with the environments they are most likely deplyoed on.
Kevin Krammer
crossplatform developer