Re: RealBasic?
- From: "Ralph" <nt_consulting64@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:08:58 -0500
"Michael Ray" <ihatespam@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9Q7tg.8420$bd4.6339@xxxxxxxxxxx
Ralph wrote:is
In addition to Rick's advice, it is useful to understand that RealBasic
theessentially just a Basic 'front-end' to a C++ library/runtime. (Not that
'engine' is merely written in C++, it is "C++".)
Since I'm not a CS major (I am an EE who only did assembler), I'll ask
the stupid question of how is this a help or benefit? As an aside, I've
thought it would be good to get into C++ so I could do my own controls.
--
Sincerely,
Michael Ray
Topshot Systems LLC
It is a matter of 'flavor'. Different languages (development platforms) have
their own feel or distinctive qualities. Which is more than just the
language. It derives from, for lack of a better term, the underlying
'Engine'.
Classic VB has a VBness to it, such that even though it and RealBasic share
a common language there are subtle differences - differences which are more
understandable if you understand the engine. IMHO, RealBasic has a distinct
"C" scent. <g>
As a further example, it was once possible to utilize the RealBasic
libraries from C/C++ (ie, skip the whole Basic-thingy). If Rick is correct
this is probably no longer the case.
Whatever an 'engine' might be written in seldom provides any advantage to
modifying or expanding the library/controls.
-ralph
.
- References:
- vb6 bcoming irrelevant?
- From: Darren
- RealBasic?
- From: Michael Ray
- Re: RealBasic?
- From: Ralph
- Re: RealBasic?
- From: Michael Ray
- vb6 bcoming irrelevant?
- Prev by Date: Re: Mike: Restating your explanation
- Next by Date: Re: RealBasic?
- Previous by thread: Re: RealBasic?
- Next by thread: Re: RealBasic?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
