OT Re: REALbasic vs. Revolution

[Alex Rice]

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 
> they're
> 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... 
> no
> 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 
"plugin".

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 
implement.

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 
book.

Alex Rice, Software Developer
Architectural Research Consultants, Inc.
alrice at swcp.com
alex_rice at arc.to