3 ms·
My most productive time as a non-professional programmer was when I used REALBasic. That was when it was affordable shareware, before it became insanely expensi
by jonathanstrange 7y ago
My most productive time as a non-professional programmer was when I used REALBasic. That was when it was affordable shareware, before it became insanely expensive and got the totally silly name "Xojo".
REALBasic was better than any other language in terms of productivity and no language/framework combination has matched that for me so far. I used to be very active in the REALBasic community and was able to make fully working applications within a few hours. That meant that I had time to spent on details that no current applications have. For example, my application used to give visual feedback to any action, including blinking menu items, blinking selections when text was copied, and so on. Contrary to what people claimed even then, carefully-planned applications also had way less bugs than they have in any language I use nowadays. REALBasic was also way better as a language than what C++ people used to say about it, it was fully structured, had OOP, and was overall pleasant to use. It definitely gave better results faster than other frameworks, and RB's OOP was a perfect fit for end-consumer, GUI-oriented applications.
Nowadays, I do own Purebasic, but since it's not structured and has no genuine cross-platform support for rich text in edit fields, I barely use it. I currently use Go with GTK3, but the combo is way worse and not even comparable to REALBasic (no RAD). The only viable alternative seems to be Python with Qt, but the results are horribly slow and the language is just ugly. I've also been using Racket for many years and the latest version of my (very outdated, long-term maintenance) shareware application is still written in it, but there are too many GUI limitations and performance problems to recommend it.
Bottom line is that I miss the good old "an unhandled NIL object exception has occurred" days. Lazarus is not a good substitute either.
- giancarlostoro 7y agoI agree. I used to do VB6 and always wanted to give RB a serious try but I was a kid and the price was too much to ask my parents for (though growing up I realize I coulda probably convinced them to buy it for me). Plus back then I was experimenting with code but not building anything special just modifying and refactoring other projects to do the same with less code. I wish Lazarus didnt have such an annoying UI and its sometimes buggy. If it were much more cleaned up out of the box I might give it a serious try. But also theres not many learning resources from what I can see. I would love to make GUIs again that are fast and snappy. I wish D had some RAD capabilities. I would even pay money for a RAD IDE in D to be honest.
- archi42 7y agoIf python & Qt is an option, then why not (modern) C++ & Qt? Genuine question. QBasic was my first programming language, and I learned C++ only during university. Looking at older code at my job I think I'm lucky to have missed a lot of language-uglyness (we have some legacy code samples that are basically some compiler-specific dialect of C89; feels totally different than C++11).
- RantyDave 7y agoModern C++ is a big jump in the right direction, but you still have to compile and link it.
- pjmlp 7y agoStill it is not so bad on Windows with either C++ Builder or Visual C++, with all incremental options turned on. Other platforms never invested that much in C++ build performance. In any case, hopefully modules will make it better.