| SillyDog701 Forums |
| Author |
Message |
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11871
|
 03 Apr, 2007 5:50 am REALbasic 2007 R2 with incremental compiler |
[sdp=83892] |
|
REAL Software announced on Monday the release of REALbasic 2007 Release 2 which adds an incremental compiler and significant improvements to the debugger.
Main new features includes:
- Incremental Compilation
- Code Folding
- Debugger Improvements
- RTF Support
“In addition to the 18 new features and over 100 bug fixes that Release 2 provides, REALbasic 2007 Release 2 adds an incremental compiler and offers significant improvements to the debugger,” REAL Software said.
The incremental compiler only compiles code that has changed since the last compile, resulting in faster compilations.
REALbasic itself is now a Universal Binary, which yields much higher performance on Intel-based Macs.
REALbasic Standard Edition requires Mac OS X 10.2.8 and 10.3.9 is recommended. It is priced at US$200 with an introductory price of US$99. A professional version for cross-platform development is priced at US$500.00
REAL Software Ships REALbasic 2007 Release 2; Adds Incremental Compiler, Improves Code Editor and Debugger (REAL Software press release, 2nd April 2007)
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2
|
|
| Back to top |
  |
 |
Dr Lobster*
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 154
Location: Norfolk, UK
|
| 03 Apr, 2007 1:58 pm |
[sdp=83909] |
|
the ide looks ok, though most of those features have been around in visual studio and borland developer studio for a while - delphi has done incremental compiles since its first release in 1996 (which is why it compiles so very fast).
i guess the worst thing about it is the fact that the language itself (basic) is an utterly horrible mess, i can't imagine why anybody who wants to do cross platform stuff would implement their product in basic.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11871
|
| 03 Apr, 2007 2:16 pm |
[sdp=83910] |
|
| Dr Lobster* wrote: |  i guess the worst thing about it is the fact that the language itself (basic) is an utterly horrible mess, i can't imagine why anybody who wants to do cross platform stuff would implement their product in basic. |
Because it is not complicated, unlike C or Java, to get started.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don_HH2K
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 4511
|
| 03 Apr, 2007 2:20 pm |
[sdp=83911] |
|
The language itself may be a mess, but if you're targeting the .NET Framework it all compiles down to the exact same thing whether you're programming in VB, C/C++/C#, J#, and so on. Though if you want to be cross-operating-system about it, the .NET Framework itself is a mess.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060917 K-Meleon/1.02
Main rig: Turion64X2 @ 2GHz, 2GB DDR2-667, 100GB HD, Radeon X300, 15" LCD, Vista Ultimate x64
Server: P2 @ 233MHz, 192MB PC66, 20GB HD, 13.3" LCD, Windows Server 2003 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony
Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 11871
|
| 03 Apr, 2007 2:22 pm |
[sdp=83912] |
|
Sorry, missed system requirements for Windows and Linux in the first post.
In Windows,
Minimum:
Windows 98 or better (98/NT/ME/2000/2003 Server, XP)
256 MB of available RAM
1 GHz Processor
Recommended:
Windows 2000, Windows XP or Windows Vista
512 MB of available RAM
1.5 GHz Processor
For Linux:
x86-based Linux distributions with GTK+ 2.0 (or higher),
glibc-2.3 (or higher),
CUPS (Common UNIX Printing System) and
libstdc++.so.5
Minimum:
256 MB of available RAM
1 GHz Processor
Recommended:
512 MB of available RAM
1.5 GHz Processor
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr Lobster*
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 154
Location: Norfolk, UK
|
| 04 Apr, 2007 12:49 pm |
[sdp=83943] |
|
| Antony wrote: | | Because it is not complicated, unlike C or Java, to get started. |
true, but it's quite expensive - visual studio express and borland turbos are free and if you really must use basic to learn programming you can do so for nothing, and like i said, the interface in vs and the borland products are much more productive and have had those 'new' features for several years in some cases.
| Don_HH2K wrote: | | The language itself may be a mess, but if you're targeting the .NET Framework it all compiles down to the exact same thing whether you're programming in VB, C/C++/C#, J#, and so on. Though if you want to be cross-operating-system about it, the .NET Framework itself is a mess. |
.net is a bit of an anomaly really. i get the feeling that microsoft aren't really behind it 100%, even though when compared to mfc it's a million times better.
i checked some of the new applications which come with vista (purble place, the sidebar, windows photo gallery, windows calender and windows mail) and none of them are written in a .net language. i can understand why office hasn't been ported over, but it seems odd that entirely new applications bundled with the new os, with the new version of the .net framework don't actually showcase the framework.
the framework itself suffers from a couple of flaws, firstly, it's incomplete. massively incomplete. to do system level stuff you need to perform unmanaged win32 calls, which, utterly negates any benefit of using the framework (such as being platform agnostic)
also, and more crucially, i believe the main reason why microsoft haven't adopted it in any real sense is that it is much easier to reverse engineer and although it can be obfuscated the actual logic and algorithms used can be seen in source form.
the cross-platform element of the framework is also interesting in so far is that is a community effort which is on some pretty dodgy legal ground.
the pc industry is in a flux at the moment. the limits of 32bit architecture are being reached and software vendors are going to need to start porting their apps to 64bit very soon, .net is a great way to ensure that no matter what processor architecture you have, the application will just work. if .net for desktop applications doesn't catch on then i feel it probably never will in any serious way.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Search
Log in
Search | FAQ | Rules and Policies
| MozInfo701 - Mozilla Information Centre
| SD701 Open Directory
| Message Board Map
| download Netscape
