Existing users, 
 REALbasic - 5.2.4Object-oriented visual programming environment |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| Version 5.2.4: | |||||
| Overall Rating: |   (1.0) |
Features: | (1.0) |
Support: | (1.0) |
| Ease of Use: | (1.0) |
Quality / Stability: | (1.0) |
Price: | (3.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews 
Troubleshooting 
Usage Tips 
Developer Notes 
Commentary 
Featured Reviews
Tip on backwards compatibility: keep older versions - Version: 2009.5.0.0, 12/3/2009 06:48AM PST
MarkusWinter
REALbasic learning source - Version: 2009.4.0.0, 11/22/2009 05:18AM PST
(0 of 2 users found this comment useful)
qbap
REALbasic is a easy to learn cross-platform programming language. It offers everything you need to make nice applications for Linux, Mac or Windows. But there was always a problem with getting the knowledge about this language. Now after years arose a great learning resource for REALbasic - http://realbasic.tutspolis.com/
Not backwards compatible - Version: 2009.4.0.0, 10/3/2009 09:24AM PST
(0 of 3 users found this comment useful)
jfcantlon
People should be aware that RealBasic is *not* backwards compatible--if you write a program in RealBasic, it won't even open in the version they put out 5 years from now. My library of hundreds of RealBasic programs (that were written between 2001 and 2005) is totally useless now because none of them will open in the 2008 and 2009 versions (I've talked to RealBasic staff about this and they claim that this phenomenon is totally normal...sure it is).
Here is the response I got from RealBasic when I asked why my programs won't even OPEN in the new version:
"Actually, 5 years is a long time to expect something to work without any changes to the project. I could understand expecting a text document to open after 5 years but development tools are much more complex because of OS changes and things like that. I have used a lot of programming tools (not just REALbasic) and have never seen one that did not require changes over the years."
Here is the response I got from RealBasic when I asked why my programs won't even OPEN in the new version:
"Actually, 5 years is a long time to expect something to work without any changes to the project. I could understand expecting a text document to open after 5 years but development tools are much more complex because of OS changes and things like that. I have used a lot of programming tools (not just REALbasic) and have never seen one that did not require changes over the years."
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
- Not backwards compatible
The same code compiles fine in the latest REALbasic 2009 R5 - I get a few warnings that EditFields are deprecated (they are being replaced by the more powerful TextArea which supports spell checking and other goodies delivered by the operating system), but that was it.
To expect that code will run unchanged after 5 years is - given the developmental pace set by Apple - naive (to be polite).
Look at Apple's X-Code: X-Code 2.5 code often does not compile unchanged in X-Code 3. Furthermore X-Code 3 requires Leopard and does not compile for older versions of MacOS X. Or in other words: programs developed in X-code 2.5 under Tiger will run fine on Leopard but not necessarily the other way round (and I know a lot of people with PowerPC machines which run 10.4 Tiger). Apple is pretty much forcing developers to either forsake new features or abandon older systems. But you do not hear the X-Code developers complain - they just get on with their work, bring out a new version with higher system requirements, and earn themselves an upgrade fee ;-)