Real Basic, Power Basic or VB

[Paulchow]

I am considering Real Basic, Power Basic and other compliers against
VB6.

What is the main differences, advantages and drawbacks?

Is it easy to convert coding from VB6 to Real Basic or Power Basic?

Any other compliers are worth to be considered?

[luthv]

Check out http://basic.mindteq.com/

[half flung pie]

I use both VB6 and REALbasic. I can't tell you anything about Power Basic, but I can tell you that REALbasic is fairly easy to use. Its interface is similar to VB (at least in my eyes.) The code is a little different, but that is to be expected. The company that makes RB makes a VB to RB project converter, and REALbasic can create executables for Windows, Mac, and Linux systems. I hope this helps you in your decision.

[esposito]

I use both VB6 and REALbasic. I can't tell you anything about Power Basic, but I can tell you that REALbasic is fairly easy to use. Its interface is similar to VB (at least in my eyes.) The code is a little different, but that is to be expected. The company that makes RB makes a VB to RB project converter, and REALbasic can create executables for Windows, Mac, and Linux systems. I hope this helps you in your decision.

Some months ago, I was planning to switch to REALbasic, since VB6 has been abandoned by Microsoft, but then I gave up that idea.

The main reason why I think that a language like REALbasic may not be a good alternative to VB6 is what I consider to be a "threat" that lies ahead.

In future versions of Windows (after Vista) Microsoft could break compatibility with non-.NET based software.

REALbasic has not been designed for the .NET Framework nor has REAL Software ever stated that they may target the MS new platform in the future.

If you want to develop 32-bit Windows software, there's no point in abandoning VB6 to switch to REALbasic, unless you want to develop applications for Mac and Linux.

Windows Vista is going to be shipped with the VB6 basic runtimes, so you won't even need to create a setup package if you want to distribute your software targeting that version of the MS OS.

[Victor Zhang]

I use VB6

[techgnome]

Windows Vista is going to be shipped with the VB6 basic runtimes, so you won't even need to create a setup package if you want to distribute your software targeting that version of the MS OS.

You mean that Vista will ship with the .NET Framework 2 (not sure about FW3 yet), right?.... Windows has been shipping with the VB runtimes for a while now.

-tg

[AioDCS]

I use both VB6 and REALbasic. I can't tell you anything about Power Basic, but I can tell you that REALbasic is fairly easy to use. Its interface is similar to VB (at least in my eyes.) The code is a little different, but that is to be expected. The company that makes RB makes a VB to RB project converter, and REALbasic can create executables for Windows, Mac, and Linux systems. I hope this helps you in your decision.

I often make softwares to be deployed to our field sales personnel all over the country. And since a large portion of our field men are not really computerese or doesnt have their own computers and have to rely on rentals, I need to create something that you can just copy-paste-use- & delete after use. Not installed-use-and uninstall after use as what VB6 would be. And most important of all, if possible, can be created as a single file software (just the exe - no dll, ocx, etc).

Question - is this possible in Real Basic?

[esposito]

I often make softwares to be deployed to our field sales personnel all over the country. And since a large portion of our field men are not really computerese or doesnt have their own computers and have to rely on rentals, I need to create something that you can just copy-paste-use- & delete after use. Not installed-use-and uninstall after use as what VB6 would be. And most important of all, if possible, can be created as a single file software (just the exe - no dll, ocx, etc).

Question - is this possible in Real Basic?

Yes, it is.

[AioDCS]

Yes, it is.

Good. I think I will take a look at this thing.

[KrisKhaos]

hmmm.... Never toyed with REALBasic, however I am very fond of FreeBasic. FreeBasic was originally designed to build a compatible QBasic/QB/PDS compiler to the win32 envirement however it's evolved way beyond that even in it's short life. FB is Open Source, and the compiler is written in FeeBasic, and compiles itself and it's software without any additional dependency of runtimes.

In addition, FreeBasic utilizes alot of the "power toys" found in C while still preserving it's MS-like syntax, so transition from VB6 to FB shouldn't be difficult. While features like common MS (ANSI) style syntax, C-like variables (signed and unsigned integers, 64bit integer support, etc.), Function Overloading, Type fields (and unions), and tons of others ... there are some drawbacks.

Just to name a few...
1. The project is still new and is in early beta
2. It is NOT an optimized compiler (executables unbelieveabily small compared to VB anyways)

Last but not least, FB is ONLY a compiler, not an IDE. There is no pretty IDE or RAD interface for a design tool, however there are downloadable ones like JellyFish, FBide, and (the best) RadASM setup for the FB compiler. RadASM provides an easy to use dialog design interface which is comparable to VB's, allowing easy design of "forms" (dialogs) which can be compiled and utilized by FB. I've even heard of a tool that will convert dialogs into a standard collection of API calls so you don't have to include a resource script with your source and be nothing but native code.

The choice is a matter of taste. Growing up with Basic since the early 80's and understanding ANSI Basic syntax is I try to stay as relitively close to compilers that use proper Basic syntax, or at least as close as possible. From what I've seen of REALbasic is that if I wanted to use C block-style programming - I'd simply use C to begin with. Of course this is simply my opinion and others obviously have there own.