RealBasic, better than Java??

[albertlee]

Hello all,

 

I like to surf on the Internet looking for IT related information.

 

Just about few minutes ago, I came to this webpage:

http://www.realbasic.com/users/java/

 

I skimmed quite alot on that website, and I found that realBasic is a programming language, sounds like perfect in every aspect of developer's perspective. However, I guess it is not a popular programming language, which, must have certain reasons for that consequence I believe.

 

Nonetheless, I have read through particularly the page above. What they are trying to say is how superior realBasic is over Java, with reasons of security and cross-platform.

 

For cross platform, it tells Java has failed on it, because Java is hard to deploy, and use non-standard Gui userinterface, but, it is unclear to me that what does it mean by hard to deploy?? As a result, I don't see why Java is a failure in cross-platform, because think about the mobile's games. Btw, however, honestly, I don't see much desktop programs written in Java, except a few, for eg, Limewire, a p2p program. Does any one know why??

 

Secondly, for security, it tells Java program is easy to crack due to its bytecode, which can be "uncompile" into source code again. Once again, still subjective, the Java JustInTime compiler does compile Java into native code.

 

What are you guys' opinions towards the issue of RealBasic and Java??

 

thanks for anticipating my thread.

 

Albert

[Dave]

At one time I used to be quite an avid user of RealBasic. It was originally free, and it was designed specifically for creating Mac OS 8/9 applications. It's the only real alternative for Visual-Basic style programming on the Mac, as far as I'm aware, but with OS X comes Cocoa which isn't all that hard to learn and is about 97 million times more powerful. Anyway, I digress.

 

I guess what they're trying to do there is say that it produces faster binaries than something like Java. However, to be honest with you it was never particularly fast when it was under OS 9, and I can't really see it happening. Plus, if I remember correctly, the application sizes are pretty damn big, and you need to have a couple of libraries installed as well. Of course, there's the added bonus that there are free compilers for Java, but RealBasic is propiatory. I'd say that they're just as bad as each other.

 

So, my opinion is this: if you're an amateur programmer, then maybe it's easier to use something like Java or RB. However, it's pretty much useless for big applications.

[albertlee]

Of course, there's the added bonus that there are free compilers for Java, but RealBasic is propiatory. I'd say that they're just as bad as each other.

 

You say they are both bad?!

 

Albert

[AtomicMX]

Java Useless?, excuse me but Java its pretty much powerfull.

Windows if its your case, is the problem.

 

Real Basic is for Amateurs as you said.

 

But try to get some more info about java, cause java its pretty strong.

[Dave]

Java has useful applications, but I'd say it's just no comparison to a well-written C/C++ program in terms of speed and binary size. It's powerful, but not in the way that everyone makes it out to be.

[Pangloss]

In other words, Java is more "useful" than C++. Because only a tiny portion of programming takes place at a level that can really take advantage of C++.

 

When you're waiting on the database to respond to your Crystal Reports request for last month's sales figures, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans if your program can execute in 0.1 seconds or 0.01 seconds.

[AtomicMX]

Java has useful applications, but I'd say it's just no comparison to a well-written C/C++ program in terms of speed and binary size.

 

Have you run java appz, outside a virtual machine? (in a real environment)

 

In the other hand, Java seems to be better at concurrency. (threads)