OT Re: REALbasic vs. Revolution
alex at mindlube.com
Fri Oct 11 21:12:01 EDT 2002
On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 07:25 PM, Troy Rollins wrote:
> My point is, until RunRev makes it possible - it ain't possible.
> Stacks with
> some transcript embedded in them may be handy-dandy work savers, but
> not adding any real new capabilities. I wouldn't even call them plugins
> personally. If this (pre-coded stacks) is what you are referring to...
> offense meant... but... big deal. As far as I've seen, there is not
> one of
> them that adds anything real to the environment.
Believe me, it's no better in realbasic. The only advantage they have
is maybe a 2 year head start for developers to write plugins.
Rev and Realbasic are very similar in that if some functionality
doesn't exist, one writes something to link with a C library to do it.
In Rev this thing is named an "external" and in realbasic it's named
So if Rev doesn't do something you want, find a C library and hack
yourself together an external.
This is what realbasic users have to do for a wide variety of things,
including *gasp* carbon GUI stuff which RB itself does not yet
As far a code modularity and so forth, Realbasic doesn't even have the
concept of "plugin" that Rev has. So that's one point for Rev, in my
Alex Rice, Software Developer
Architectural Research Consultants, Inc.
alrice at swcp.com
alex_rice at arc.to
More information about the use-livecode