The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
On the other pole entirely, I'm known at work for not wearing a coat to walk from my car to the lobby when in heavy snowfalls or -40 windchills. Around my apartment I'm known for shoveling snow in shorts and a tshirt.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots.
-- Robert Royall
I lived in this area for 10 years before the 2-year sojourn to Orlando. I like snow. I'll be having fun in January!! Although, watching out for the DC idiots who have no concept of how to drive in snow is always ... interesting and good for developing my non-kid-sister-safe vocabulary.
ha ha I think you're right in os far as what was probably meant, but as a die-hard VB defender I think ERL was right!
Trouble with all you anti-VB lot is that you're all stuck in the past. With the advent of .NET there is really not that much difference in what can be done in either language. If VB is still more forgiving of bad programming practice, such practices are still the fault of the developer, not the language.
In some ways, this coming together of the different languages in the .NET framework is a retrograde step, precisely because it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another. In the old days, VB was great for quick and dirty solutions, while C (in whatever guise) was all but essential for anything "heavy-duty". Nowadays, it really doesn't matter - it's purely a question of personal prefernce which language you use - they are all the same under the hood.
I must step in at this point, because Real Basic is comparable with VB 6, and not VB.NET, so arguments that VB.NET is as good as C#, while interesting, have no relevance here. It's like comparing a bicycle to a horse - while they both theoretically could be used for the same thing, nobody in their right mind would attempt to go show jumping on a bicycle.
So - what do I think about Real Basic? Well, I preferred VB - and that's saying something. The problem is, it's big selling point is that it's cross platform, which isn't of much interest to a lot of developers if the underlying application doesn't have access to the fancy features. And the simple fact is VB's biggest selling point was how customisable it was with the use of ActiveX controls, which aren't cross platform.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
I'm not anti-VB. I just poke fun at it from time-to-time.
Phil Uribe wrote:
this coming together of the different languages in the .NET framework is a retrograde step, precisely because it takes away the relative advantages of one language over another
You should look at something like Oxygene. It is an object pascal based language targetting the .NET Framework. It has some features that are way ahead of C# or VB.NET and it is accelerating away. You can't really accuse it of the "coming together of ... different languages"
For those of us working under deadlines maintaining code written by programmers who didn't like to use Option Strict, that statement is of little comfort.
Who in his sane mind would not use Option Strict? I know, DirectCast and CType are verbose (especially the former, which is way more useful), but what's the point of using a compiled language if you're going to rely in late binding? To hell with the VB culture.
That statement is equivalent to saying that the differences between every language that compiles to native code is just an illusion as well, because the real language is native machine code. Actually, if you are developing on Windows, it isn't even real machine code - it's abstracted to be executed by the HAL.
I'm not misinterpreting it. It is certainly thinner than the .NET framework (much thinner), but you can virtualize windows to run on just about any hardware by implementing a HAL that translates those CPU instructions accordingly. Yes, the "machine code" in the executables is very close (if not identical) to the X86 instruction set to minimize the translation needed.
But we are diverting...my point was that simply that just because everything ends up in a common format (be is MSIL or be it PE format for execution on windows) doesn't mean that every language that compiles down to the common format is equal and any differences are illusions.
I totally agree with you Phil. I'm an old school programmer who worked in assembly language for 15 years, then C for 10 years, then up to C++, Cold Fusion, and now to VB.Net for the last two years. I was naturally attracted to C#, but my employer had standardized on VB.Net so that's what I learned. And I have to say that I like the clarity; brevity isn't always a virtue! But at one point, after reading many anti-VB rants I started to feel that I wasn't a "real" programmer anymore, despite knowing that both languages utilized the same runtime. Anyway, I got over it. And after all, when you get down to it it's all about design isn't it, no matter the language?
Real Basic's claim to fame is that it didn't follow Microsoft down the road of creating a very proprietary form of BASIC. It ran on just about all the original home computers, including the original Mac. It can trace it's roots back to Dartmouth BASIC and has the blessing of John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz the two professors who created it with a team of CS students. It's based on Fortran and Lisp.
I found it interesting as a piece of history, but couldn't see that it had any practical use.
Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I often browse the tool section in the DIY store, but wouldn't consider buying anything unless I had a job to do that could be done easier with a new purchase. Similarly, I investigate the programming problems I am trying to solve before looking in too much detail at any particular programming tool.
If you want a cross-platform classic VB-like programming tool, and don't mind that the active user base is relatively small (= limited peer support), RealBasic looks fine.
In my opinion, if you're working in a commercial environment, you're generally better off with something more mainstream.
Hi Cory. I did only a very small project 2 years ago with RealBasic, so I really don't have much experience with it. However, here are RealBasic's best selling points.
1 - All the RAD simplicity & speed of development of VB6, but is cross platform (Windows, Mac & Linux).
2 - OOP development.
3 - No runtimes or external dependencies(no .NET or Java runtime needed, nor VB external DLLs). This means the applications can even be a self contained "portable"; that is you can run them from a USB key, and you don't need to install them.
RB is marketed to developers that are already comfortable with the VB6 language & mode of development, and should be suitable for projects that you would build with VB6.
It does appear though that RB's 3rd party add-ons and COM support tool market is a significantly smaller market than VB6's own.
Hope this helps you Cory. If you do use RB, please update us all on this forum with your findings.
I wouldn't describe it at all as a dumbed down version of VB6. It's like what VB7 should have been. I think a lot of developers who didn't want to go to .NET went to REALbasic. As far as its technical details it compiles to machine code, uses native interface controls, has object-oriented features like inheritance, polymorphism, interfaces, etc.
I encourage you to check it out. They have a free 30 or so day trial. Let us know how it works for you.
I've played with it. It is NOT a dumbed down version of VB. It has pretty much the same syntax as VB6, but it supports things that VB6 never supported, such as multithreading, polymorphism, multiplatform, etc.
For old VB6 developers who are put off by VB.NET, I think REALbasic is a possible alternative (but then, I like to support the underdog sometimes).
They have a free standard edition for LINUX you can download, or you can try a 30 day free trial for the Windows version.
I recommend giving it a try, but definately try it before you buy it to make sure it fits your needs.