--- On Sat, 6/5/10, 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 th
> 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 or
do.
Pete Haworth
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)
___
t 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 wrote:
>
> > From: Richmond
> > Subject: Re: REALBasic vs Revolution
> > To: "How to use Revolution"
&
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 wrote:
> From: Richmond
> Subject: Re: REALBasic vs Revolution
> To: "How to use Revolution"
> D
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
> 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 are
> 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 thing
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 R
>
> >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 l&f on this list.
> --
>
Good point Ro
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 y
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 a
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-revolutio
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 ht
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 l&f on this list.
--
Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Soft
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.
W
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.
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 an
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
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 necessar
> 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]> wr
Chipp Walters wrote:
> Sticking to the interface was important up until...the advent of multimedia.
> Then button rollovers, sounds, effects, beautiful revealling interfaces
> changed it all. Kai Krause showed interfaces could be different, beautiful,
> intuitive and still work. Though Apple still
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 witho
Troy Rollins wrote:
> This is my last post on the topic. Maybe at all here.
Troy, I'll get on bended knee if necessary, but your posts have been among
the most thought-provoking here yet. I can honestly say I've spent more
time thinking about words you've laid down here than 90% of the email I r
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
person
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 u
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
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
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, con
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, consis
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 tha
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 h
>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.
J
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 be
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
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 softwar
PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 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
>
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
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.
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 custom
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.
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 ev
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
>> platfo
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, free-f
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
>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
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, a
48 matches
Mail list logo
