On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:21:49 GMT, Math1723 wrote:
> On Apr 2, 11:51 am, "Auric__" <not.my.r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> I've played with Kbasic on Windows and Linux, and it's... well, I
>> don't like it. It just rubs me wrong. As far as Macs are
>> concerned, my only Mac is a 68k machine; I can't even run OS9 let
>> alone anything even remotely modern. (It's got 7.something.)
>
> My only concern about KBasic is that it is built with Qt. Qt seems
> powerful enough, but I haven't always had great experiences with
> cross- platform apps built with it.
Qt seems okay to me. KDE is built on top of Qt. Opera (web browser)
uses Qt under Linux (and possibly other *nix systems) without problem.
Qt has a Windows version that presumable works (but I've never tried).
>> Out of what you listed above, I've played with or used a few.
>> - REALbasic: Nice, but you already know that, right? What I'd use
>> for Mac development, although I still use v5.5 (meaning no Intel
>> Mac sup****t for me).
>
> Yeah, I have Pro 5.5 as well and haven't upgraded. At first I
> didn't because they changed to a Microsoft-like all-in-one
> interface and there was no universal binary sup****t. By the time
> they remedied these flaws, they significantly increased the price
> tag of the product, so I just haven't been motivated to make the
> switch.
Price is my sole motivation. I haven't even tried newer versions --
and honestly, it works for me, so why "upgrade"? (Actually... I'll
upgrade if I ever want to make x86 Mac apps. Maybe a couple of years
down the road, unless something better comes along.)
>> - PureBasic: I wasn't aware that they were doing a Mac version
>> now. (IIRC, last time I looked, it was Windows/Linux/Amiga.)
>> Interesting, but didn't fit my needs when I tried it. It *does*
>> produce tiny apps; when equivalent apps on RB vs. PB, it's
>> extremely noticable -- the smallest RB app is something like 1.5MB
>> while it's only a few K for PB.
>
> I've never used PureBasic myself, but the reviewer did not say good
> things about it, so I'll probably not bother with that one.
I noticed. His main complaint seems to be price vs. value. [shrug] The
few sample apps I tried worked just fine under Windows and Linux. (My
Amiga bit it a few years back. [sigh]) *If* I ever need to write for
Amiga again -- real Amigas, not AROS -- this is what I'll use. (I have
MS BASIC for Amiga on floppy(s?) somewhere, but PB is *better*.)
>> - Chipmunk: I like this one, but it's interpreted. Handy for open-
>> source projects and lots of other stuff, but if you don't want
>> your source visible to everyone then keep going.
>
> Does this one require line numbers in the source?
I don't *think* so, but I don't remember. (Just because I like it
doesn't mean that I actually use it very often.) This is really a
question for Mr. Nicholson. He's a reg in clbm (as R.Nicholson) and a
few other BASIC groups; if he doesn't reply in this thread try pinging
him.
>> ISTR that Liberty Basic was working on an OSX version, but I'm not
>> willing to hunt down the info.
>
> Thanks.
NP. Another you may want to look into is FreeBasic -- AFAIK it's
Linux/Windows/DOS-only, but it's based on GCC so it shouldn't be *too*
hard to get working under OSX.
(For the record, my preferred BASIC is PowerBasic, but that's
currently DOS & Windows only, with some customers *****ing about a
long-promised-but-never-delivered Linux version.)
--
- A magician is a rule-of-thumb engineer.
- And a philosopher is a scientist with no thumbs.
|
