on 2/17/00 6:05 PM, FluxerIIxi@... at FluxerIIxi@... wrote:

> REAL Basic vs FutureBASIC
> REAL Basic and FutureBASIC are total opposites. And these differences are very
> important things to consider when programming. Things that may determine if
> whether your project is an
> excellent project or a good project.
> 
> REAL Basic is a programming tool, allowing you to write your program visually.
> Even with it's visual programming, you still have to navigate through source
> code, and this may even be harder
> to do due to the visual interface. The syntax itself is awkward many times and
> the interface isn't the best I have seen. The other advantage to REAL Basic is
> that it can compile for both Mac OS as
> well as Windows.

If you are not used to a visual programming environment, navigating through
source code may seem awkward. However, new programmers (and of course,
anyone used to a visual programming environment) find it to be more
intuitive because the idea of double-clicking on a button to view the code
for the button seems very obvious to them.

Regarding the syntax, I think it's object-oriented syntax you are finding
awkward rather than REALbasic's syntax. If you have programmed in another
object-oriented language, you would probably find REALbasic's syntax to be
familiar.

Regarding the interface, I would be interested in knowing what you didn't
like about it since you didn't say specifically.
 
> However, there is a heavy spin on this: what makes REAL Basic strong is what
> makes it weak.
> 
> REAL Basic suffers limitations because it is meant to compile for both Windows
> and Mac. This in the end does take away what the Mac user can do. Sure you can
> write a plug-in using C, but by
> the time you learn C, you will be better off just using C instead, dashing the
> dream of clarity and simplicity that is central to BASIC languages.

You say that our cross compiler limits REALbasic but you don't say
specifically how. I presume you are assuming that you have to write plug-ins
to access the toolbox but this is in fact, not the case. Check out the
Declare statement. It allows you to call the Mac or Windows toolbox
directly. Also in 2.1 (which is in public alpha testing right now) we have
added properties to windows and controls that give you access to the them
for Mac toolbox calls.

We also provide conditional compilation that makes writing code to make
Windows and Mac toolbox calls easy. You might want to check out TB Finder at
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-42040/rb.html. It's written in REALbasic and makes
finding Mac toolbox calls a snap. It also provides the REALbasic declare
statement for you. I recently added notification manager support to an
application I wrote in REALbasic.
 
> FutureBASIC is a friendly giant monster with ot of power. If you want to write
> a program that takes advantage of the latest Apple technology, you are in
> luck, unless you are using REAL Basic.
> 
> If FutureBASIC doesn't support a new toolbox call, you can add it yourself
> using the information that Apple provides, the same way that C programmers do.

As I mentioned above, this really isn't true. REALbasic eliminates the need
to learn and use the Mac toolbox for the vast majority of your application
building. However, when you need to make toolbox calls, you can do so.
 
> To summarize things, think of REAL Basic as a souped up version of HyperCard
> and in programming that isn't a compliment, and even worse, HyperCard can do
> some things better than REAL
> Basic, that is sad. To demonstrate the power of FutureBASIC, FutureBASIC is
> programmed in FutureBASIC itself, not like REAL Basic that is programmed in C.

The portion of your review regarding FutureBasic versus REALbasic doesn't
seem to be very objective. To call REALbasic a "souped up version of
HyperCard" tells me that you don't know REALbasic very well. I have seen
reviews that compare FutureBasic versus REALbasic and objectively point out
the strengths and weaknesses of both but your review (IMHO) seems to be far
from objective.

One last point: REALbasic is written in REALbasic. The IDE uses all the same
underlying classes that users use to create their applications. Are the
dialog boxes in the IDE creating using the REALbasic IDE? No but they are
built with the same classes. And consequently, a future version of REALbasic
will be written using the REALbasic IDE.
-- 

Geoff Perlman
REAL Software, Inc.
http://www.realsoftware.com
mailto:geoff@...