On Feb 14, 2006, at 8:22 AM, Theodore H. Smith wrote:
From: Charles Burkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:31:51 -0500
Pretty much any app on your list could be done in RB, in some cases
with a
little help from C libraries for certain types of speed critical
operations.
But, as has been pointed out, most of your list existed before
RB. And
competitive features, UI, and performance are not a guarantee of
"world
class killer" status. That takes good marketing (or being really
good and
first to market) as well.
I pretty much agree with you on this point except for one caveat.
Most or all of those application required large teams to code them.
RealBasic is pretty large-team unfriendly
Even with external items?
Yes, even with external items, though they do improve the situation.
For example, John and Mary concurrently change two different methods
of the same class. In any other language that I use, that's a trivial
merge. CVS or SVN both would take care of it for you without any
muss, fuss, or bother. With RealBasic, we'd have to edit the class
consecutively with locking based revision control. In my experience,
that doesn't work as well. We also lose out on diffs, and easy
attribution of changes. All of would be possible with a text based
project file system, like Delphi used to have. In the meantime, I
can't see using RealBasic even in my 4 person team on any project
we'd all be working on.
I personally wish RB gave us greater access to the external items.
RB does not make it immediately obvious and glaring how to make
code items external or internal. It should be doable at the click
of a button. There should be an "Internalise/Externalise" button,
for which you can apply to all your code items, just by doing
"select all, then click button".
Also, RB needs to make sure that it doesn't lose track external
items so easily, the "connections" can be lost too easily. It
doesn't seem to have any relative path (or any path) management.
You can't tell that external item X exists in "<project>/code/
X.rb", which would be good because it'll stay like that no matter
where you move or copy it.
I agree that these would be nice changes.
, what with the difficulty
of using a good revision control system allowing for concurrent
development.
Is that just because RB has it's own binary file format? CVS
systems tend to work on text, like C++ or Java or XML.
Yes. Pretty much. Binary file formats seem to preclude merging with
a generic tool. If RealSoftware came out with a tool allowing merging
of their binary format, it would improve things a great deal.
Hey, I like RealBasic a lot. I just couldn't use it with my
programming team. For me it's a single developer tool with some bugs.
Not as many bugs as some tools I've used, and more than others. All
in all a good tool.
-Chuck
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
