On Apr 2, 11:51 am, "Auric__" <not.my.r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> I've played with Kbasic on Windows and Linux, and it's... well, I
> don't like it. It just rubs me wrong. As far as Macs are concerned,
> my only Mac is a 68k machine; I can't even run OS9 let alone
> anything even remotely modern. (It's got 7.something.)
My only concern about KBasic is that it is built with Qt. Qt seems
powerful enough, but I haven't always had great experiences with cross-
platform apps built with it.
> Out of what you listed above, I've played with or used a few.
> - REALbasic: Nice, but you already know that, right? What I'd use for
> Mac development, although I still use v5.5 (meaning no Intel Mac
> sup****t for me).
Yeah, I have Pro 5.5 as well and haven't upgraded. At first I didn't
because they changed to a Microsoft-like all-in-one interface and
there was no universal binary sup****t. By the time they remedied
these flaws, they significantly increased the price tag of the
product, so I just haven't been motivated to make the switch.
> - PureBasic: I wasn't aware that they were doing a Mac version now.
> (IIRC, last time I looked, it was Windows/Linux/Amiga.) Interesting,
> but didn't fit my needs when I tried it. It *does* produce tiny apps;
> when equivalent apps on RB vs. PB, it's extremely noticable -- the
> smallest RB app is something like 1.5MB while it's only a few K for
> PB.
I've never used PureBasic myself, but the reviewer did not say good
things about it, so I'll probably not bother with that one.
> - Chipmunk: I like this one, but it's interpreted. Handy for open-
> source projects and lots of other stuff, but if you don't want your
> source visible to everyone then keep going.
Does this one require line numbers in the source?
> ISTR that Liberty Basic was working on an OSX version, but I'm not
> willing to hunt down the info.
Thanks.
|
