CocoaBasic - 2.5t2BASIC development environment |
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| This Version: | |||||
| Overall Rating: | Not rated (0.0) | Features: | Not rated (0.0) | Support: | Not rated (0.0) |
| Ease of Use: | Not rated (0.0) | Quality / Stability: | Not rated (0.0) | Price: | Not rated (0.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews
Troubleshooting
Usage Tips
Developer Notes
Commentary
Featured Reviews
Whow! They *really*… 



- Version: 2.5t2, 3/22/2003 12:01AM PST
eagle42
managed to wrap the Cocoa framework into a BASIC language that appears to be comparable to REALbasic! Hope they restore the IDE soon. What I also like is that they provide things (like the compiler module) for trying out. 4 stars for idea and giving us something to play with - one missing for a working (and bugless!) IDE.
where's the 'integrated'… 



- Version: 2.5t2, 3/21/2003 12:42PM PST
sooloo
interface editor? the debugger? the compiler? (there's a compile button, but it doesn't appear to do anything besides show a save sheet.) the documentation's listed topics?? almost the entire features list is nonexistent. might be nice for people who adore BASIC syntax when it's done, but even those people will probably have learned AppleScript Studio by then.
Lovin' Mac: cause… 



- Version: 2.0a13, 11/15/2002 07:27PM PST
rcfa
Jaguar fixes a whole slew of things that are not working optimally. Any new software development should start with Jaguar, and since this is still a beta version, by the time it's GM, it's time for people to have moved on to 10.2 or even 10.3 anyway. So why should anyone in their right mind develop something for an old OS that's outdate by the time the product is ready? Compensate for the unqualified one-star review by giving it four, that should bring it back to the 3-star rating it had before... Haven't actually used this software, but it's silly to see it dragged down in the ranking, just because somone wants useless 10.1.x compatibility