--- On Sat, 6/5/10, Peter Haworth p...@mollysrevenge.com wrote:
Wondering if anyone has personal
experience using REAL Basic and Revolution? I did see
some discussions on this list but they're all pretty
old. At first glance, REAL Basic appears to provide
very similar functionality to
http://www.mollysrevenge.com
http://www.sonicbids.com/MollysRevenge
http://www.myspace.com/mollysrevengeband
On Jun 6, 2010, at 6:42 AM, use-revolution-requ...@lists.runrev.com
wrote:
Re: REALBasic vs Revolution (Michael Kann)
___
use
Thanks for all the input. As usual, sounds like it comes
down to a matter of the application and personal preferences.
I've spent perhaps 30 minutes looking over Real Studio and
what has caught my eye so far is the report writer, as
previously mentioned, what looks like very well
Wondering if anyone has personal experience using REAL Basic and
Revolution? I did see some discussions on this list but they're all
pretty old. At first glance, REAL Basic appears to provide very
similar functionality to Revolution and a few things (like a report
writer) that aren't in
On 06/05/2010 08:21 PM, Peter Haworth wrote:
Wondering if anyone has personal experience using REAL Basic and
Revolution? I did see some discussions on this list but they're all
pretty old. At first glance, REAL Basic appears to provide very
similar functionality to Revolution and a few
Wondering if anyone has personal experience using REAL Basic and Revolution?
I did see some discussions on this list but they're all pretty old. At
first glance, REAL Basic appears to provide very similar functionality to
Revolution and a few things (like a report writer) that aren't in
Wondering if anyone has personal experience using REAL Basic
and Revolution? I did see some discussions on this list but
they're all pretty old. At first glance, REAL Basic appears
to provide very similar functionality to Revolution and a few
things (like a report
writer) that aren't
It depends if you want to program, use the IDE, in Linux.
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/REALBasic-vs-Revolution-tp2244408p2244478.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
The most important difference I've found between the two is that the chunk
expressions in RunRev make it much easier to manipulate text.
--- On Sat, 6/5/10, Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: REALBasic vs Revolution
To: How
I've found between the two is that the chunk
expressions in RunRev make it much easier to manipulate text.
--- On Sat, 6/5/10, Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: REALBasic vs Revolution
To: How to use Revolution use
One thing I do admire about Windows, is the lack of a 'holy
ordained look'
(just my opinion).
I'm beginning to develop an appreciation for that myself, Chipp. But
I see almost as much concern for a better XP look feel as for
improved OSX lf on this list.
--
Good point Rob, I would
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 Troy Rollins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/11/02 8:26 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- What's wrong with the language such that a completely separate API in
needed for plugins?
I Rev/MC we can trade groups and other native objects without needing to
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 23:47:40 -0400
Subject: Re: OT Re: REALbasic vs. Revolution
From: Troy Rollins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/11/02 11:01 PM, Chipp Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about libURL? Talk about 'real new capabiities
I AGREE! Please continue to add your thought-provoking commentary. To make a
good stew, the pot must be stirred from time-to-time.
miscdas
[snip]
Richard Gaskin writes:
Troy Rollins wrote:
This is my last post on the topic. Maybe at all here.
Troy, I'll get on bended knee if
Scott,
Please, please continue with a business paradigm that includes do things
right, rather than quick. As a Windoze user, I am sick of the buggy
bloatware offered by MS. I NEVER install version 1.x of any MS products; the
patches and bug fixes that have to be installed are a testament to the
On 12/10/02 7:03 am, Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's definitely some confusion here: these are not what would be
called plug-ins in RR, they'd be externals. All of these things
*could* be done with externals, many of them quite straightforwardly,
at least if you know C and can
OK... I've been holding back until I had something specific to add here. These discussions tend to reach fanatical levels, so I hope we can discuss it all the way through in a reasonable manner.
A couple of things struck me as true. For starters, let me point out that I work in several languages.
This is where the Mac shines versus Windows, in my opinion.
Loren, et al:
I owned an original 64K IBM PC, but left the Intel world before
Windows. In retrospect, it would be a lot easier for me to respond
if I had as much experience supporting Windows users as I have
supporting Mac users.
One thing I do admire about Windows, is the lack of a 'holy ordained look'
(just my opinion).
I'm beginning to develop an appreciation for that myself, Chipp. But
I see almost as much concern for a better XP look feel as for
improved OSX lf on this list.
--
Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity
On 10.11.02 10:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if Rev doesn't do something you want, find a C library and hack
yourself together an external.
Who has the time to learn to program C? That's why we picked an xTalk in
the first place.
--
D. John Downs
Does Bryce count?
Judy
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Richard Gaskin wrote:
If you know of an application that is popular, runs on at least two
platforms, and takes significant liberties with the native UI, I'd love to
take a look at it.
___
use-revolution
Rob,
So no keyboard driven options? I am a touch typist, and have little love
for the mouse. I find it particularly annoying that much of the Web REQUIRES
mouse actions. I make use of keyboard shortcuts (when available) in all my
apps. I wish all of them had easy keyboard navigation as well
On Saturday, October 12, 2002, at 01:21 PM, D. John Downs wrote:
So if Rev doesn't do something you want, find a C library and hack
yourself together an external.
Who has the time to learn to program C? That's why we picked an xTalk
in
the first place.
Looking at your website, it appears
For me, (and recall I'm not a professional developer), there is a
difference between apps that all look identical (which is what everything
done in VB tends to be) and apps which merely leverage a
previously-learned UI, consistent adherence to which is often touted as a
learning advantage.
Judy,
Kevin, et al:
Geoff Perlman posted this on the RB mailing list,
raising some good points which I thought I should reply to
I think Geoff missed the point entirely:
His issues are trivial compared to (and I'm speaking in general, not
just RB vs RR):
Can I translate the design concept in my
On 10/10/02 8:26 PM, curry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question of RB vs. Rev is interesting and is getting more so, not
less. The main reason I'm still interested in RB is its potential for
3D. That's the only place where Rev doesn't offer anything.
The main difference for me is that I
On 10/11/02 11:01 AM, Rob Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, (and recall I'm not a professional developer), there is a
difference between apps that all look identical (which is what everything
done in VB tends to be) and apps which merely leverage a
previously-learned UI, consistent
On Saturday, Oct 12, 2002, at 00:50 Australia/Sydney, Rob Cozens wrote:
For me, (and recall I'm not a professional developer), there is a
difference between apps that all look identical (which is what
everything
done in VB tends to be) and apps which merely leverage a
previously-learned UI,
Rob Cozens wrote:
How rich is the framework provided? The vendor can only supply so much
functionality. After that, you're going to want a rich set of third-party
plug-ins to choose from. Which environment provides this?
As a publisher of commercial software, I prefer to create my own
On 10/11/02 8:26 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- What's wrong with the language such that a completely separate API in
needed for plugins?
I Rev/MC we can trade groups and other native objects without needing to
treat them as second-class citizens.
Personally, I think this
Lorin,
I haven't said much in this debate because usually it's a matter of
personal preference. Many people find VB very easy to use; others find it
foreign or difficult. Some find Rev easy, others find it not so easy. There
are so many factors involved (amount of programming background, tools
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
Hi,
There has recently been a discussion about Rev vs. RB on both the Rev and
the RB mailing lists. Geoff Perlman posted this on the RB mailing list,
raising some good points which I thought I should reply to. But I'd rather
not fan the flames of a large off topic conversation on the RB list,
Geoff Perlman posted this on the RB mailing list,
raising some good points which I thought I should reply to. But I'd rather
not fan the flames of a large off topic conversation on the RB list, and I
know that anyone seriously considering Revolution vs. RB is likely to be on
this list, so it
On 10/10/02 2:53 PM, Rob Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMF(oolesh)O, tuning my UI for internal consistency and optimal
handling of the task of the application are more important than
designing it to look like a clone of every other app on the same
platform. If RB doesn't allow the freedom
I, for one, couldn't agree more. IMFO, there has been a near-total lack of
open-ended interface design. Everyone seems, quite literally, to live
'inside the box' or, more precisely, 'inside the screenrect'.
There have been brief examples of tools that allow you to create circular
or, even,
Troy Rollins wrote:
On 10/10/02 2:53 PM, Rob Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMF(oolesh)O, tuning my UI for internal consistency and optimal
handling of the task of the application are more important than
designing it to look like a clone of every other app on the same
platform. If RB
On 10/10/02 3:37 PM, Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. Well, lessee... RB can certainly do those things. It can also make
applications that look and act like users expect them to.
Asde from throbbing default buttons and dialog sheets on OS X (neither of
which have ever been
Rob,
For me, (and recall I'm not a professional developer), there is a
difference between apps that all look identical (which is what everything
done in VB tends to be) and apps which merely leverage a
previously-learned UI, consistent adherence to which is often touted as a
learning advantage.
Recently, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Right. Well, lessee... RB can certainly do those things. It can also make
applications that look and act like users expect them to.
Asde from throbbing default buttons and dialog sheets on OS X (neither of
which have ever been mentioned by my customers),
Recently, Ro Nagey wrote:
There have been brief examples of tools that allow you to create circular
or, even, free-form stacks...but I haven't seen anything recently. We, the
creators, seem trapped by Windows/Mac boundaries when we should be designing
the new and the different.
Fully.
At
Troy Rollins wrote:
Aside from throbbing default buttons and dialog sheets on OS X (neither of
which have ever been mentioned by my customers), what specific things might
users expect that can't be supported in Rev?
Richard, I am a big fan of Rev, and have attempted be be very fair on both
: REALbasic vs. Revolution
Recently, Ro Nagey wrote:
There have been brief examples of tools that allow you to
create circular
or, even, free-form stacks...but I haven't seen anything
recently. We, the
creators, seem trapped by Windows/Mac boundaries when we should
be designing
the new
Recently, Ro Nagey wrote:
Cool game...but like the docs say - meaningless if you don't know the
rules...which are located where?
There were no rules, only mysteries to solve. :-)
The UI was intentionally exploratory -- no instructions. Players were
supposed to interact with the software
Dear Richard
On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 07:44 AM, Richard Gaskin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Me neither. But to provide useful advisement to the Rev team to help
them
prioritize, we can get farther once we identify specific differences in
control appearance and behavior that are a
The question of RB vs. Rev is interesting and is getting more so, not
less. The main reason I'm still interested in RB is its potential for
3D. That's the only place where Rev doesn't offer anything.
The main difference for me is that I *enjoy* working in Rev. I'm not
sure if that point has
46 matches
Mail list logo
