At 9:44 AM +0100 9/6/01, Ben Rubinstein wrote:
>on 3/9/01 8:25 pm, Geoff Canyon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> ps -- comparing Rev with REALbasic is apples and oranges. They are
>> superficially similar, but in detail are far too different to compare
>> reasonably. RB has some strong suits, but Rev has more, and their strong areas
>> are again very different.
>
>How about apples and pears? They are different, they have different
>flavours, most people have a preference for one or other, and some only like
>one; but all the same, they address overlapping requirements, and I think it
>is reasonable to compare their prices.
Certainly, but it would be pointless to try to compare apples and pears to come up
with a ratio of the value between them. In other words, I like Apples better than
pears, so for me the ratio is probably 2:1, meaning that if Apples were $2/pound and
pears were $1/pound, I'd still buy the Apples, but just barely -- any more expensive
and I'd buy the pears.
But my point is that the strong suits of Revolution and REALbasic are very different.
If someone wants "to develop applications" and can't be any more specific, then a
general comparison makes sense. But if someone wants to develop 3D games, then
REALbasic is by far the better choice -- it has built-in support, and the price of the
two products isn't relevant. If someone wants to develop text utilities that run on
Linux, then RB is a non-starter there, and Revolution shines. Again, price is
irrelevant.
Those are two extreme examples, but I think that for most people, they have some idea
of why they are purchasing a development environment more specific than "to develop
applications." As a result, their decision between the two will be much clearer than
any generic feature/price comparison can be.
regards,
Geoff
