Gambas is a Visual Basic-like programming framework for Unix and Linux. It compiles to byte-code, and executes programs with an interpreter. Currently, Gambas GUI programs rely on the Qt toolkit, but GTK+ 2.x bindings are in the works, as seen in this Gnomefiles page.
Gambas 0.94 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’ll give it a try and post my impressions later…would be funnier if the language behind were Python not Basic, but I suppose the guy receives this kind of comments (“why not language X?”) all the time…
Might be funny to remind me good’old Basic though
BTW this Gnomefiles link was a bit..hum..forced…but hey, gotta publish the new site heh
Why not Mono? Seems like reinventing the wheel. Mono already has GTK-bindings (though no functional Qt-bindings). I guess you could just write a compiler for MSIL for Mono and Gambas, and you’d be set…
– Simon
“ono already has GTK-bindings (though no functional Qt-bindings). I guess you could just write a compiler for MSIL for Mono and Gambas, and you’d be set…
”
gambas has been there long before mono and mono has fears of patent problems. besides gambas doesnt use a IL so there is no question of reinventing the wheel. gambas is also more simple if you dont want to understand a whole lot of apis and stuff.
Gee, it needed only a handful of messages to this become (the 1000th) Mono-patent thread
Hey, enjoy Gambas, remember it has completely different goals than Mono, it seems to be a pet-project from a nice french guy, not an enterprise app, and chill
enough talk.
try rexx.
Why not use forth? It is the modern and superior language for the masses.
If you want a Visual Basic-like programming framework, why not just use Visual Basic? Some people say open source is all about innovation. I say it seems mostly about re-inventing the wheel.
Develop a wheel that fits all cars… so you don’t have to re-invent it every time.
I can’t use Visual Basic because it’s owner won’t release a version that works on my operating system because doing so wouldn’t help him sell more of HIS operating systems.
That’s why.
Right when I saw the headline I was hoping that they were targetting IL. That would be the _right_ thing to do.
Why not Forth? Because this is 2004, not 1984. There is nothing “modern” about Forth.
It was an excellent language for the Atari 800 but we have real processors with real operating systems that use real filesystems now. Forth is obsolete except for microcontrollers.
Basic (in any form) is obsolete as well.
“That would be the _right_ thing to do.”
its just the fancy method to do it. not really necessary or required for all languages.
http://www.devchannel.org/devtoolschannel/04/02/02/1932209.shtml
check these out. tell me what you think.
I hate to say it, but this is a project that has a lot of potential, but it has to be almost a carbon copy of VB. I just finished taking a VB 6 programming course as it’s a required course before taking others. The vast majority of people that took the class had no clue about programming etc… Being able to get down to business right away and be productive under a free operating system would be great, companies that staff all these VB programmers, who may or may not actually be computer literate, can just drop in a new environment along side the old one and slowly migrate over. I have friends that endlessly program in VB every day to suit in house projects, most of which get revamped or destroyed within a couple of years. For them to migrate would take time, but makes is really simple with little retraining, and an adequate admin who’s salary will be paid for in the licensing savings. Mmmm, I like things that are better for the local economie and make sense.
I also want to have the ability to import and export glade project xml files.
But I wonder if it would be easy to support GTK and its layout managers. I think that if there weren’t layout managers, it would be a lot easier to build GUI designers and maybe tie them to code. QT has so many GUI designers already, just because it does not support or mandates layout designers?
Good to see that Gambas isn’t dead after all. I hadn’t seen a page update in quite some time, so I stopped checking for a long time. I really dig their avatar, man! Plus, the syntax is similar to Visual Basic, so VBers can dig it readily.
On Mono/DotGNU/.NET: personally, I think it would’ve been a good idea to target IL. This is what puts me off: “…but GTK+ 2.x bindings are in the works…” I suppose Mono or DotGNU wasn’t a viable option back when Gambas started, but, hey, take your pick: free bindings to all libraries, freeing you to work on the language itself, or rolling it all by hand but being able to mutilated the APIs however you want…
You be the judge.
“If you want a Visual Basic-like programming framework, why not just use Visual Basic?”
Because it only runs on Win32/x86.
“Some people say open source is all about innovation. I say it seems mostly about re-inventing the wheel.”
Some people say you’re human. I say you are a troll.
Mono already has GTK-bindings (though no functional Qt-bindings)
There are functional Qt bindings – see http://qtcsharp.sourceforge.net/
>If you want a Visual Basic-like programming framework, why not just use Visual Basic?
You have a link for VB for Linux? Some of use don’t use Windows as our regular OS.
I’m really surprised that the number of negative comments about a great open source project, posters here amaze me sometimes.
You have a link for VB for Linux? Some of use don’t use Windows as our regular OS.
http://wine.godmonkey.com/wineimg/vb6.jpg
Thanks, but that’s not VB for Linux, that’s VB running under Wine on Linux, not the same thing.
Rapid application development tools, part 1: Database front ends:
http://tools.devchannel.org/devtoolschannel/04/02/02/1922256.shtml?…..
“What strikes me about this list of products is the lack of any GTK tools. Either the software is Qt-based or utilizes another toolkit (in the case of Omnis and OpenOffice.org/Star Office). I found nothing from GTK or Gnome that could accomplish the tasks I wrote about. Correct me please if I’m wrong; I’ll happily revise myself.”
No, they have been discontinued a long, long time ago. I don’t even think they compile on the latest Mono.
Also, it relies on QtC, the Qt C-binding.
– Simon
People who write VB apps get laughed at all the time. This is just a waste of time. Basic is dead, has been dead for at least 10 years, and programs like this should be filtered by routers.
If you want to do low level programming use C and asm, else stick to python, java and C#. Basic is completely redundant in today’s world.
People who write VB apps get laughed at all the time.
Not as much as people who have attitudes like yours 😉
Basic is completely redundant in today’s world.
Why? Microsoft certainly don’t think it is.
Nowadays, if it isn’t on the browser, it isn’t worth.
Sad but true. At least it’s the general feeling.
Parrot would be also a good for a project like this (and it would have less possible patent problems than .NET CLI).
http://www.parrotcode.org/
People who write VB apps get laughed at all the time.
Yes, at “l33t” IRC channels and stuff like that. On a professional environment you’ll find lots of respectable programmers who have VB and VB.Net as part of their tools (not the only languague they master, of course)
If you want to do low level programming use C and asm, else stick to python, java and C#. Basic is completely redundant in today’s world.
If you think C# is good, there’s no reason to think VB.Net is bad. They’re pretty much equivalent.
Why all the MS Hardcore fans are always posting that everything MS does is called innovation?
I mean, Visual Basic was crappy before Delphi come out. After Delphi, MS took all the innovation from Borland.
Now, what’s innovation to you? Copying, Stealing, Buying and releasing ideas from other people/company is Innovate to you (at least from your post).
People mock VB developers, sure, but the VB developers get the work done much quicker.
VB is VERY productive, actually.
java also is very productive
Why not Forth? Because this is 2004, not 1984. There is nothing “modern” about Forth.
It was an excellent language for the Atari 800 but we have real processors with real operating systems that use real filesystems now
please explain the reason it is the thing that makes freebsd start (booteasy)
in a story like this- about one language- why bother coming in to say “why not use language x?” i mean, we all have our favorite pet language, but suggesting it here isn’t going to magically convince anyone to stop looking for a VisualBasic clone. I use Squeak Smalltalk- it can be as RADishly productive as VB, and cross-platform. But I’m not dreaming, thinking that everyone wants to know what *my* favorite language is. Sorry, but as far as VB-like capabilities and power, Rexx doesn’t compare. Nor does Forth. There is a nice RAD environment for Perl and others, but if it can’t do what these people want *right now* then don’t bother slamming this project because they’re not ready right now either.
…is all “good” software written using Gtk and all bad stuff using Qt or some other toolkit? I have never seen a single report over here that would say something like “unfortunately Foo is written using Gtk, but a Qt port is in the works”. Of course this site is heavily geared towards trying to show off Gtk/Gnome at every chance, but sometimes it just looks naive and silly.
You can’t release a commercial program using Qt without paying Trolltech a hefty royalty can you? If there were a full implementation of Gtk for Gambas you could. That rates an “unfortunately” to me. It’s neither naive nor silly.
If I understand this correctly, a Gambas program uses a wrapper API for GUI components, so it is not directly linked to any implementation, but the interpreter loads one depending on the user’s configuration.
In this case the developer of the application can choose any licence as long as it is compatible with Gambas’s own licence and does not have to worry about restrictions of the toolkits used to create the GUI modules.
That only matters to the creators of the GUI modules.
From what I’ve been reading on the Gambas mailing list. That’s not correct, at least for Gambas. You can release a Gambas-Qt program under the GPL without cost, but if you want to release a commercial effort (Closed Source, is more accurate I guess) you’re required to play Trolltech’s liscencing fee.
“It”s really pretty simple. If you want to sell a program that requires Qt, *and* to not give away the source to that program, you have to buy a Qt commercial license. (Even if you want to give the program away as “freeware”, if you don”t include the source you have to buy the Qt license.)”
–Rob
This is apparently because including the gb.qt component (the Qt GUI bits) dynamicly links to Qt/Free which would reguire a GPL liscence. As any software that links to a GPL library must include code.
I could be wrong but that’s the information I’m seeing over and over again on the mailing list. So to me, a Gambas Gtk component released under the LGPL makes perfect sense.
This is apparently because including the gb.qt component (the Qt GUI bits) dynamicly links to Qt/Free which would reguire a GPL liscence.
Ah, I see. I assumed the actually used backend was a configuration issue (based on feature No.5 from the list on the website), but it seems it is a development decision.
Too bad, having the toolkit depend on the user’s input would have been a very nice feature.