QBAP  REALbasic is a easy to learn cross-platform programming language. It offers everything you need to make nice applications for Linux, Mac or Windows. But there was always a problem with getting the knowledge about this language. Now after years arose a great learning resource for REALbasic - http://realbasic.tutspolis.com/  
(Version R4)

CANTLON  People should be aware that RealBasic is *not* backwards compatible--if you write a program in RealBasic, it won't even open in the version they put out 5 years from now. My library of hundreds of RealBasic programs (that were written between 2001 and 2005) is totally useless now because none of them will open in the 2008 and 2009 versions (I've talked to RealBasic staff about this and they claim that this phenomenon is totally normal...sure it is).  
(Version R4)

RUBAIYAT  Well here we are well into the 3rd quarter of 2009 and still waiting on Cocoa support.  
(Version R3)

GREGORGY  Eagerly awaiting Cocoa support...

It is coming mid-year, according to reports from the Real Software but I gotta say, that is a bit late.  
(Version R1)

MACINTOSH SAUCE  I have been a REALbasic user since version 1.0, so I am familiar with all the improvements REAL Software has made to this product. REALbasic just keeps on getting better and better with successive releases.

Next year, I am really looking forward to being able to use Cocoa objects with REALbasic code - that is going to be so cool IMO.

Keep it up REAL Software! REALbasic blows Visual Basic out of the water!  
(Version R4)

EGN  I come from the web-app programming world.

Had been looking for a good, solid development platform for Mac. Tried Xcode, read Hillegrass (Cocoa programming for Mac OS X-3rd edition), but man, Objective C is not my cuppa! And, I could only develop for the Mac using these (maybe porting and jumping through fire hoops could ge my apps on other OSs). Also tried Runtime Rev. but found that to have an inconsistent interface, very un-Mac-like, almost Java-ish, and with a language that although is almost like spoken English, is very hard to remember. And the "stacks" deal... Tried a couple more and those were worse.

Then I found RealBasic. The interfase is consistent (and as Mac-like as can be), the documentation adequate and the learning curve much, much flatter than Xcode/Objective C or other competitors. You do all your coding from a single window, even creating databases and tables.

Plus, you can code once and use the apps you create in three different operating systems (if you use the Pro version; personal is just for the OS you are on; on Linux, RB is free!).

With RB you can program using OOP or from the top-down. I have not had it for long but it looks like I'll keep this one.  
(Version R3.1)

JEFF HENDRICKSON  I've been using REALbasic since version 5.4. It bothers me sometimes when I see it described as a "hobbyist's" tool. I use the pro version of this excellent development tool exclusively to develop my cross-platform commercial software products, including "Purify."

REALbasic offers a lot, and like anything else, you need to dig into it to discover its true capabilities. Technical support is great, and responsive. The online support community is great. The product has everything that you need to do real cross-platform product development. The only plugin that I've ever needed is the MySQL plugin for some of my Linux server based apps, which by the way works great. My primary development environment is OS X 10.4.11, on a dual PowerPC Mac with 1.5GB of RAM and a Cinema Display, and REALbasic is a pleasure to use in this environment.

My recommendation, if you're looking for a powerful cross-platform development tool, look no further than REALbasic Pro.  
(Version R2)

SHOTGUNWEDDINGS  I love all the negative feed back from the nay sayers. The clueless never cease with their tripe.

RealBasic is fun to program with once you get the knack of it.

Its easier to learn and so what if a few bugs are in it still, very few programs are bug free these days.

Why spend months or years learning programming languages when you can create your own programs with RealBasic within hours!

Try the demo version and see if it works for your needs, what can you lose.  
(Version R2)

ALEKSI STRANDBERG  REALbasic does take more memory than well designed C programs.

Now all Macs ship with 1GB of RAM

REALbasic does take more CPU time than well designed C programs.

Most user's CPU's are more or less idle all the time.

REALbasic does create bigger files than Xcode.

Most people nowdays have a fast DSL connection.

The most affordable MacBook comes with a 120GB hard drive.

With C/C++ the programmer's own resources are very much occupied.

There is a huge amount of information to remember and take care of.

With REALbasic, the user can use these spared resources in other areas.

You can't write a game like WOW with REALbasic, as such thing would require the absolutely optimal use of the computer, but this doesn't mean that you are limited to just writing stuff like database apps with REALbasic.

Features which are now crucial for me were just included a year ago.

And they are still developing it.

When it comes to bugs, in my own experience, the apps I have used extensively, they all have more or less bugs, except Reason.

Paying for bug fix releases?

REAL software is not a big company.

Usually the same code works for both Mac and Windows, which is just amazing.

REALbasic and C++ can work together too, you can hook your REALbasic application to C++ libraries easily.

The IDE itself is slow to operate.

How fast can you really write?

Isn't that what most of the work is about?

It is a Rapid Environment and you can accomplish good results with significantly smaller development teams and/or timelines.  
(Version R1)

TEKSESTRO  I have accompanied the development of RealBasic since version 2. As the latest versions of RealBasic have now been developed with RealBasic itself (or so we're told), the developers seem to have become aware of the many bugs that have plagued the application for years - and have been systematically correcting them.

Unfortunately, RealBasic is still releasing what basically amounts to bug-fixes, and charging their users for it. The list of 'new features' for 2007 R5, as far as I can see, doesn't actually have any new features, except for bug and stability fixes.

I have found that the type of programs you develop with RealBasic are quite limited, on all platforms. They certainly do not look Mac-like, and I have been plagued with problems in Windows and Unix. The 'code once, deploy anywhere' slogan is a fallacy, as there are quite a lot of tweaks that have to be done for specific platforms.

In summation: if you are a hobbyist programmer, or you really want to try and develop for all 3 platforms at once, you'd be better served by something like "Runtime Revolution" (the successor to HyperCard). If you want to get slightly more serious about programming, then I suggest looking at one of the (many) languages supported by XCode, Eclipse, and other free programming tools.   
(Version R5)

DNELSON  Okay, here are some definite reasons to NOT use REALBasic:

1. It's slow -- you'd have to have a G4 (at least) to be able to run it.

a. Xcode and Interface Builder are actually fast all the way back to an old G3.

2. It doesn't write Cocoa programs. The programs it writes are downright UGLY.

a. Xcode and Interface Builder are made by Apple, so they follow Apple's user interface guidelines. They make applications that look great.

3. It is NOT simple and easy to understand. It's interface is a joke. You have tons of items to drag into your interface, but there are no connections as far as I can tell (maybe they're just hard to find).

a. Xcode and Interface Builder are easy to understand, the connections are easy to create, and it's interface is very helpful and easy to learn.

4. Supposedly you can build for Mac, Windows, and Linux. Well, you can. BUT, you have to edit simple information about the application 3 times! Also, you can't make one common interface, so each platform will get a different version of the same application!

Oh, well. In summary, DON'T use this software. It's not as good as Xcode (2 or 3) and Interface Builder (2 or 3). It creates ugly, bloated, memory-hogging applications that don't follow any user interface guidelines.  
(Version R5)

GREGORGY  Still have to pay for another functional "upgrade"

Intel cost me $250 a year ago and now Leopard will cost me another $250 since I have a pro license  
(Version R5)

TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE  Pros:

-Very easy to use, yet powerful.

-Best Cross-Platform solution there is.

It's amazing how easy it is to create cross platform and NATIVE apps (its not like java)

-The customer support is just awesome.

Cons:

-Mac: Still no Cocoa (apps look horribly old-fashioned and ugly)

-buggy

Conclusion:

If you only want to write Mac OS X apps, forget RB and get XCode (its not only free, but has COCOA!)

If you want your apps for all 3 platforms (mac,win,linux) RB rocks  
(Version R4)

GREGORGY  Great! So now we have to pay to allow our apps to work on Leopard! I wonder, will developers whose products need to be rewritten for Leopard be chaging an upgrade fee - especially since many of us had to pay for Intel a year ago!  
(Version R4)

CALLE  Mike, I couldn't agree more. I've been using RealBasic since the CrossBasic-time. Seems like we, sooner or later, will have to dig through all that code again, since one of the new features of 2007r4 is that 'REALbasic built applications now launch on Leopard'.. RealBasic is easy to learn, a bit tricky to use and for many reasons hard to get further and beyond.  
(Version R4)

MIKE L  I've been using RB since at least version 2, mainly for household apps and occasional utilities. I'm not exactly a power user, but I do make use of some advanced features (e.g. AppleEvents, UDP). All-in-all, I think RB is fine for people like me who need to jump in every few months to develop or modify an app. My only real complaint is that quite often the updates have undocumented effects that cause my apps to stop working when rebuilt. It is quite annoying.

2007r1 is one of those updates. For whatever reason, my Home Security app now crashes when accessed from the internet.

I know it could be that I have previously been exploiting an unknown defect that the RB people have now "fixed", but I just don't have the time to go digging through 10's of thousands of lines of code to discover it. So, I've rolled back to 2006r4 and all is well once again.

I'll try 2007r2 when it comes out, maybe some professional programmer will have helped them figure things out by then.  
(Version R1)

DEMOSTHENES  After the fantastic (if a tad unstable) 2006r4 release that included universal binary support and could finally handle files greater than 2GB, as well as a host of useful language features and tweaks, what does this version offer?

A few bug fixes for errors that should never have been introduced in the first place, a meager reduction in file sizes (no better than about 20%), and very little in the way of significant new features.

Perhaps for some users the few new features and fixes will be vital, but for me this is the first time that I'm seriously considering skipping an upgrade.  
(Version R1)

KRYSTOF VASA  Not impressed at all! I used to be a RB developer, my product Liberer ( http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/15432 ) used to be written in RB. When I got my new MacBook Pro in March, I decided to rewrite it in Cocoa. I didn't know Cocoa at all and I got it rewritten in two months. Now (after 6 months of development that was NOT intensive at all - I changed a few lines every other week) it has more features than it had, is more powerful and can rely on the newest technologies Apple releases!

An empty Universal Application built with RB has 7.1 MB. I mean WTF? In XCode, an empty app is not more than 100kB!

I, however, still need to use RB as I have multi-platform projects. But developers, you whose projects are Mac only, please, try using XCode...  
(Version R4)

SOREN0  When will REALbasic support creation of Universal Binaries?  
(Version R3)

KRYSTOF VASA  And I forgot to say, that no plug-ins will probably work under a new RB that would compile Intel-based apps. The plugins will have to be recompiled first...  
(Version R2)

KRYSTOF VASA  I have been programming in RealBasic for a long time. Maybe way too long. I always wanted to start with Cocoa, but I was too lazy (as many of the RB users). But the Intel-transition was the point. In January I didn't know anything about Cocoa at all. Within a month or two I re-wrote nearly my whole application in Cocoa. It is way faster, way more reliable and much pretier. + all toolbars are customizable, etc.

It's just great.

And a message to RealBasic developers:

Intel! Intel! Intel! Intel! Intel! Intel! Intel! Intel! Intel!  
(Version R2)

MACMATT  Do you like the new, single window interface or the old multi-window interface.

Take the poll!

http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=3269505229  
(Version R2)

LXANDREW  The best 200x release so far.

The code editor is (finally) nice and fast to use, and they seem to have understood programmers do care a lot about little items like "Hide Empty Methods", "New Implementor", "Find Implementors", more preferences, etc.

The size of the project file has shrunk considerably (more than 60% smaller in my case), which translates to much quicker Open and, most importantly, Save. Compilation seems a bit faster too.

Binary size is not really an issue for desktop applications.

Yes, the single-window interface has indeed its drawbacks, but overall it has increased our productivity, although more customization options wouldn't hurt.

Overall a fine release! Sometimes focusing on quality instead of quantity has a huge payoff.  
(Version R2)

TOMIS  Well at least they're fixing bugs. But RB5.5 is still the last usable version.

* RB2006 build sizes are still too large

* RB2006 still doesn't compile intel-native apps

* Performance is still worse than 5.5

* The interface still needs major re-designing

REAL Software knows about these major problems but they refuse to fix them. RB has become a Rapid Application Development Environment without the "Rapid".  
(Version R2)

PETBER  I have used RB since version 2 or 3 and have had so much fun making useful apps. I got RB2005 when it came out and it sucks. I still use version 5.5 since 2005/2006 have an IDE that is impossible to work with. I don't know how good or bad the compiler etc is because I cannot get that far in teh project. It is simply a pain and a struggle to try to create something when you constantly have to fight the user interface itself.

This reminds me of Netscape 6, which became a "new" app, with a bloated and useless front end.

I am hope the Real people understand this and scrap the 2005/2006 UI now and go back to the 5.5 look. I will buy it immediately, but with the current look I might as well stop using this programming language and go over to XCode.  
(Version R4)

DIPHO  I have been using REALbasic for a long time, I loved this application. It was an awesome developing environment until version 2005 came out. This 2005 version is something horrible, the IDE with its one window and tabs is unusable. Wake up, REALsoftware, wake up!!! Bring back the good, reliable, old traditional interface or it is inevitable that you will lose a lot of Mac customers.  
(Version R4)

ANONYMOUS  The user interface of RB 2005 is UNUSABLE, it is NOT a Macintosh interface, it is restrictive and not intuitive - a complete nightmare. And besides that, it is SLOW, very, very SLOW.  
(Version R4)

ANONYMOUS  Acceptable if you' re interested in writing cross-platform applications.

If you want to write Mac software the Mac way, use XCode.

It's a choice between the greatest common divisor or the best.  
(Version R4)

RSISANOTHERMICROSOFT  Please don't let RS you with it long lists of of so called improvements in IDE as most of the stuff the they list are actually components that worked in the previous version (5.5). They are simply trying to use bug fixes as features to try entice you to purchase the product. As a 5.5 user I don't see any improvements from build 1 to 4 as we still have a unusable IDE - it does not in way allow a user to use the program in the same Mac friendly way as 5.5. Realbasic 2005 is unsuitable as a commercial product - instead what we have is a continued beta release of a product for which the company expects you to pay for the privledge of providing free beta testing for them. A part of me really can't believe that after these years they finally decided to rape their original Mac users; but on the other hand a small part of me did become suspicious when they came out with their Windows version of the product. I guess I am too trusting of people and figure at least some people have moral values these days, but I guess I am wrong as now I am out a lot of money and several years of my life as the new interface is entirely unusable.  
(Version R4)

PHAN THOMASS  Is RB2005 a top notch or a piece of crap? I decided to test and compare three versions of RB (4.5.3, 5.5.5, and 2005R4). See yourself what reviews are close to truth: those with 1/no-star or 5-star ones.

Here are the tests, results and comments:

1. IDE Run

----------

Test:

I ran all apps several times to find out how fast they are ready for work.

Result:

The apparent winner is 4.5.3. Version 5.5.5 was 1.8 times slower than 4.5.3. RB2005R4 was 5.55 times slower than 4.5.3 and more than 3 times slower than 5.5.5.

Comment:

If you need to run RB2005 often, and you probably do because it crashes, you can expect losing your nerves very soon. RB2005 is enormously big app, no wonder it takes so long to load.

2. IDE Performance

------------------

Test #1:

I opened a window with 300 controls on it from the project window.

Result:

Once again 4.5.3 was the fastest, with 5.5.5 2.7 times slower. RB2005R4 was more than 4.8 times slower than 4.5.3 and 1.8 times slower than 5.5.5

Test #2:

I double-clicked a control on the window from previous test to open its code editor.

Result:

RB2005R4 was about .6 times faster that 5.5.5 but both version were beaten by 4.5.3 where the editor opened instantly, about 10 times faster.

Test #3:

I scrolled the code editor with 200 lines of code both with arrow keys and scrollbars.

Result:

4.5.3 and 5.5.5 had pretty much the same results. But 2005R4 was 2.6 times slower when scrolling with keys and 4.3 times slower when using scroll bars.

Test #4:

I tested how much code it is possible to type during certain period.

Result:

4.5.3 and 5.5.5 performed equally. But 2005R4 was almost 1.4 times slower.

Comment:

IDE of 2005R4 is noticeably slow. The vital things a programmer needs to do - typing, scrolling the code, navigating among windows and code editor - all are much much slower than in previous versions of RB. In cases that you have window with more controls, moving such window within its tab or arranging its controls is impossibly slow, even on the fastest machine.

Not to mention that because of that 'great' tabbed interface you must forget about Drag-and-Drop, using CMD-number to switch among windows, and you'll click the mouse at least twice as much as before 'thanks' to that tabs and the new language reference.

Anyone claiming that the IDE is a big step forward and is speedy and efficient must be a completely blind idiot - or a person bribed by RS.

3. Debugger / Compiler

----------------------

Test #1:

I repeatedly ran the project from the IDE (exactly 10 times).

Result:

Without doubts, 4.5.3 has beaten the rest. It ran the project almost instantly. 5.5.5 was from 11.3 to 12.7 times slower(!). 2005R4 was 15 to 22.3 times slower than 4.5.3 and 1.3 to 1.86 times slower than 5.5.5 (!!!)

Test #2:

I created builds of the same project for several times.

Result:

4.5.3 was a winner again. 5.5.5 was 4 times slower than 4.5.3. 2005R4 was 4.9 times slower than 4.5.3 and 1.25 times slower than 5.5.5

Test #3:

Build size.

Result:

Here, the 4.5.3 was a loser. It created a file 2.1 times larger than a winner - 5.5.5. But 2005RB4 created build .32 times larger than 5.5.5. Not to mention Mach-O build which was 3.17 times bigger than the one from 5.5.5.

Comment:

Debugging and building application got much slower when moving from 4.5.3 to 5.5.x. But 2005R4 is slower even more. You can expect to spend ages waiting while RB2005R4 runs your project. With large projects the situation will be deadly. With such snail-speed, debugging is a torture. It's a complete nightmare when you just need to make large number of small corrections in the code or to find a hidden bug and always need to Run and Quit/Exception. Go and buy lots of coffee.

And it's not funny that the app with 38 lines of code, 1 window and 5 controls has 1.3MB in size.

4. Application (Build) Performance

----------------------------------

I created a small app containing one window with a pushbutton, editfield, statictext, listbox, and timer. There were 38 lines of code to test the speed of each build.

Test #1

I opened the created applications several times to measure how fast they load.

Result:

There were no significant differences. But 4.5.3 was fastest even with the larger file. The slowest app here was the one created by 5.5.5

Test #2

Overall performance. The application performed several simple tasks such as for-next cycles, string operations, creating pictures, opening windows, filling up listbox, etc.

Result:

The fastest build was the one from 2005R4. It was 5% faster than the 5.5.5 one and 11% faster than the 4.5.3.

Test #3

User interface. I scrolled listbox of 2000 lines.

Result:

2005R4 was the fastest, 1.14 faster than 5.5.5, and 2.35 times faster than 4.5.3

Test #4

User Interface. Typing speed into editfield.

Result:

2005R4 again a winner, only 1.02 faster than 4.5.3, but 1.09 faster than 5.5.5

Test #5

Windows. I tested how fast the windows are opened and manipulated.

Result:

Here, the fastest was 4.5.3, 1.28 times faster than 5.5.5, and 1.18 times faster than 2005R4

Comment:

Here's the one positive thing: RB255R4 creates better performing builds than 5.5.5, but the improvements are not that significant. And the price is a larger file. Windows are still slow, 18% drop in performance compared to 4.5.3 can be felt.

And I realized that there are bugs in RB2005R4 that can be found back in RB 2.0! Not good.

============================

Overall Results:

RB2005R4 is a small step forward in terms of quality of builds, but it remains a major step backwards in terms of efficiency, speed, and ease of use.

What a programmer needs, is a tool to design, code, and debug/test his applications, quickly and easily. And RB2005R1-R4 fails completely here. Your skills are worth nothing if you have to wait for the IDE, wait for the debugger, wait for the compiler,...

I mean, what's the value of the tool, that allows you to create a good application (final build) on the one side, but it doesn't give you a creative freedom and makes the development process incredibly slow and painful? A penny? No way!

And shame on the RS because they changed a good programming tool into 117.6MB of unusable software and they are not willing to confess. Shame on their greed. But most on their arrogance of how they are making idiots from the mac users by trying to persuade us how great RB2005 actually is -- using up bribed traitors that write nonsense-5-star-odes-to-RB2005. If RS is about to grab a portion of the PC market, they are on the best way -- they are extremely good in adopting the techniques of MicroSoft: persuading people that the crap they make is the best thing ever.  
(Version R4)

JEFFREY  R4 is much more stable than R3 or the previous RB 2005 releases. Many bugs fixed too. It still crashes on occasion though. Software compiled with it is much more stable than the IDE. While I initially loathed the new RB2005 interface, I have gotten used to it. I wish there were an option to separate the properties pane into a separate window like with the old interface. The single window architecture can sometimes be a blessing but really is occasionally a curse. The new RealSQLDatabase is a pleasure to use and program. It is very stable, useful and powerful. RB's database browser and creator module is horrible and clutzy. You have to go through several clicks and erase a lame, unrelated to reality select statement before entering your own query. Ignoring this abomination of an SQL utility, the database is fabulous. Even if C++ snobs don't like REALbasic, it is very powerful and can build excellent good software. A good and skillful programmer is the key, not the language. I have been using it for about three years, and it really is a fine, useful product.  
(Version R4)

MARKUS WINTER  REALbasic has been steadily improving, and the new "Rapid Release Model" meant that better versions came out in quick succession. RB2005 made some major changes to the interface, and some features in the IDE have not yet made it across (but will in time), however the single biggest request of all times was that more than one project can be open at a time. In RB 5.5.5 I usually had 5-10 windows/palettes open for one project - so in order to manage this efficiently with more open projects RB went to a tabbed window interface (like in Safari). Were there other ways to achieve this? Yes. One could hide all other project windows automatically. But the tabbed user interface is surprisingly economic and only get's in the way if you make an app with huge windows (which is more often than not rather bad design).

Release 1 wasn't really ready for prime time, but the problems got sorted out quickly and with Release 4 the improvements over 5.5.5 are quite dramatic (my personal favourite is the new html viewer control). However where REALbasic really excels is at the user support: subscribing to the mailing lists is a must, and when you are stuck you usually have an answer to your problem from the developers themselves or even the CEO within the hour  
(Version R4)

ANONYMOUS  The same horrible IDE, and extremely slow with large projects.  
(Version R4)

TOMIS  If you want to write mac only programs, learn xCode. If you want to write cross-platform programs, there really isn't any ideal choice, REALbasic is one of many, and they're all slanted towards one OS or another, usually towards awkward PC-to-mac interface ports.

So any complaints against RB are really complaints against trying to port ant program between OSes with completely different interfaces and paradigms and keep the interfaces consistent across platforms yet also consistent to the platform it's on.

There's just no good clean way to go about it and RB is no different in that respect.  
(Version R4)

ANOTHERENRON  For years I have supported this company by buying a pro license for my Macintosh, provided help to others, written some tutorials, providing free testing of intial releases of the product and in return all I got in RB 2005 (RB 6) was the removal of of my beloved Macintosh interface. No longer am I allowed to open project items into seperate small Macintosh windows and then arrange them as I want to on my dual screens. No longer am I able to move the properties and control pallet around my desktop as they are now fixed in one annoying position. No longer am I able to edit project windows within a seperate window so as to get a very good "feel" as how the window is going to look in a runtime environment as instead I have to construct my windows inside a tab which requires me to scroll project windows back and forth inside. Can't use the color pallet or code splitter as they have been removed. Can't make head nor tails of the new Language Reference as instead of all information for each individual term on one page they've spread the information on individual pages for each definition which causes the users to click back and forth between pages as opposed to simple reading through a item. None of my printing code from 5.5 works any longer. I refuse to help promote this company any longer by providing free help to users of this product any longer as why would I want to help a company that stabs me in the back by removing the original Macintosh interface and other features that I've been using for years. At this point in time I no longer trust anything this company says or does and I've frankly had enough of its propaganda directed toward its Macintosh users about why these changes were made.  
(Version r3)

ANONYMOUS  Continues its long march off the Mac platform.

I'd rather write java apps in java.  
(Version r3)

SAM ROWLANDS  There are technical reasons as to why RB 2k5 has tabbed windows, now you can have multiple projects open at once and if you miss the old way then simply open a new window. REALSoftware have been working hard with the RB community and its paid of, 2k5 is very stable and includes lots of useful features. If you can look past the interface change and realize that so much more can be done with 2k5 I am sure that you will agree with me.  
(Version r3)

ANONYMOUS  This is the update I've been waiting for. 5.5.5 is now gone and I'm able to work in 2005 R3 100% of the time. IDE is much snappier and several bugs that were annoying are fixed.

Great update. Thanks, RealSoftware!  
(Version r3)

JAZFER  This release cannot be compared with the excellent 5.5 version. REALbasic 2005 is SLOW with an UGLY and unusable Windows like interface.  
(Version r3)

NIACC  Will not be updating to RS 2005 due to the new VisualBasic Windows style interface. I frankling do not understand what they were thinking that Mac users would be happy using a Windows interface on their Mac. Four years of programming are now down the drain as I no longer have a product which can be updated on my Mac. Not very happy with this company any longer.  
(Version 2005r2)

TORE  RB2005r2 OS X looks like still in the beta stage.

Crash and errors, but I looking forward to the next release. I hope the RS would fix the bugs.

/Tore  
(Version 2005r2)

CHARLIE  REALbasic 2005 is the best upgrade so far to a product that was already top-notch. The fact that REAL Software have written the new version using REALbasic itself is a testament to how powerful it can be. Couldn't live without it - thanks RS!  
(Version 2005r2)

P SANDERS  [REALBasic 2005 r2]

I had some initial difficulty getting used to the UI change, from the 5.5 version of REALBasic, but I now am enjoying the new design.

I have especially appreciated the makeover they gave the Language Reference, the previous one was very slow to scroll long topics and required some back and forth to find what I was looking for. Now, it's presented more like a web page and much more responsive, which means I find the syntax I couldnt remember more quickly.

Of course, one of the KILLER features of RB 2005 is the included SQLite database support (purchased from one of this product's plugin developers - RS respects and supports their community)  
(Version 2005r2)

STAN BUSK  I have been using REALbasic since v1. It is the only real multi-platform RAD that really works. I began developing on the Mac and then adapted most of my products to Windows very easily. I love the interface and the online documentation. REALbasic community is also as a big family, you can exchange ideas with developers including the CEO!... Personally I think I can talk about that product as a long time professional developer. Take some time testing it, subscribe to the many mailing lists and if you have problems share them there, not here. 5 years ago I started my own company thanks to that amazing product and actually I am very proud of it. Note that I was using Delphi on the PC and CodeWarrior on the Mac before  
(Version 2005r2)

ANONYMOUS  Real Basic 5.x was a bad product. This is even worse. It's slow. It's clunky. It even has an MDI in OS X! It makes me wonder why people buy it. Get XCode and Visual Studio and program in C++.  
(Version 2005r2)

ANONYMOUS  Its the best version ever... Im trying it and it really works, and the new IDE is very good  
(Version 2005r2)

ANONYMOUS  I didn't get far with this upgrade either. Been an RB user for years and years but this update sucks badly. I HATE the interface and decided not to upgrade.

What I hope is that RB can has the management maturity to admit a mis-step and take a sick puppy and nurse it back to health with it's user base.  
(Version 2005r2)

CHRIS TURKEL  Turned a once easy to use application into an ugly, nasty and difficult to use nightmare. The UI is terrible and the layout even worse. Stay far, far away.  
(Version 2005r2)

PETER  What a disappointment. The interface is restrictive and ugly like a windows app.

Tools are lo longer organized, but rather put alphabetically so that you're always looking/scrolling for what you need instead of the old palette where you saw everything at once.

I compiled my app and it was slower than version 5 and also 3 megs bigger (this is the exact same code with nothing changed).

bottom line: ugly, buggy, user-hateful interface, slower, bloatware.

Hopefully the company will fold and some of the programmers might start a new basic project from the ground up. Realbasic 2005 for me is a dead-end product not worth a cent.  
(Version 2005r1)

RBCRASHLOG  Wow.

This is just laughably HORRIBLE and BUGGY.

Example, click the green glob in the window title bar. On my machine everything from the tab bar up seemed to get "scrambled."

So, there are three primary functions Apple's GUI asks of a window: close, minimize and resize.

Hey I guess two out of three ain't bad...

http://developer.apple.com/cocoa/

http://rubyonrails.org/  
(Version 2005r1)

KVIL  This release is disappointing, it is the worst release of REALbasic ever. The IDE is horrible, ugly and incredibly slow - it is not a Mac interface, the old interface was better and much faster. Building your application takes three times longer than in the previous version of REALbasic, and the final built application is about twice the size comparing to the build from the previous 5.5 version.  
(Version 2005r1)

Y.P  Just as a note to other mac/rb users, there is a bug report/feedback started through their system to try and push them to at least add some customizability to their next update. So far, it's had a lot of support and I think it is better to direct our efforts towards a single thing like this (in addition to sending in our comments directly). If you're unhappy with the new IDE as me, check out and vote for this feature request:

http://support.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?reportid=dsvwfpuu  
(Version 2005r1)

ANONYMOUS  Checked out 2005 last night and I agree with the other posts, this release is ridiculous. The IDE is very slow (probably because they are using the same runtime as REALbasic itself), and the tabbed interface falls down when you start using it, creating tabs upon tabs for no reason.

I also have a hard time believing a developer actually signed off on this design. On my 12" powerbook the editor window is about 25% of the entire UI, instead of being the main focal point. Lastly, it appears they've changed (or broke) the way menu items are referenced so there is no hope in getting my project up and running on it without major changes. There is no way I'm going to spend money on this release when it forces me to use it's Windows-like workflow instead of being flexible enough to allow it to be used like 5.5.  
(Version 2005r1)

CHASE COLMAN  Absolutely horrible IDE. Reminds me of the disgusting look of MS Visual Basic. This IDE it fatty, ugly, and down right disappointing. Also the language reference is extemely hard to navigate and takes longer to find what you are looking for. I like the little location bar but if you could also keep the side listbox instead of this little link page I think it would be much better. Also get rid of those ugly text shadows, red with a black shadow is just ugly. I like the more organized and blocked language definitions though. Alltogether I think 5.5 is much better in my opinion. Also the little design environment is hard to work with and windowing modification is slow (dragging, resizing, etc.). It is slow, cramped, and odd-looking, for all users of RB stay with 5.5 or lower.  
(Version 2005r1)

ANONYMOUS  What were they thinking -!? They managed to completely screw up the UI. It's incredibly slow. What was once a decent IDE has fallen down to a less than stellar attempt. Avoid this version at all costs, but see if you can find the older, and superior, 5.5.  
(Version 2005r1)

YOUSEFF PUPIN  This is by far the worst release of realbasic ever, hands down. It's sad to see how badly RealSoftware messed this one up with the IDE.

It is so-Windows-ish, it's just plain sad. I thought this new RealBasic 2005 release would be good, but no luck. It is really, really bad this time guys.

I hope they get an update out quick and realize the mistakes they made, and many it won't be too late for us Mac developers. The current 2005 IDE GUI is absolutely hideous.  
(Version 2005r1)

CHRIS  No complaints with the application its self but having just downloaded the trial version of RealBasic 2005 I had hopped to purchase a standard edition licence code, as a UK customer the RealSoftware website directed me to the Nova International and Inventive Systems sites to purchase the activation code, these companies sites has proved to be totally useless as they either does not feature options to purchase RealBasic 2005 codes at all and are confusing in the extreme. I am annoyed that having chosen to purchase this product I find that as a non-US customer I am not able to.  
(Version 2005r1)

TOMIS  REALbasic compiles it's runtime "framework" into each application. Under MacOS X this is a .dylib file contained in the application package, under Windows it instals a DLL into the users system last time I checked.

Under MacOS X, the runtime lib alone takes up 2.4MB. That's some 2,390,000kb of references to QuickTime, core socket, and a myriad of other things your app isn't going to use.

This creates un-needed bloat. If REALbasic simply compiled directly into the native calls that it's runtime libs end up issuing then it would cut down significantly on the bloat.

-------------

Having worked with RB for years; I suggest new programmers-to-be pick up Cocoa. If you want to move to cross platform compiling then you can use Java or one of the cross-compiling C++ libraries. There are options out there to make efficient cross platform code, RB isn't one.

The upside of RB is: it has an easy development language.

The downside is: everything else about it.  
(Version 5.5.5)

ZAC  Realbasic is officially the coolest thing since the wheel. It is an amazing tool once you learn the lingo which isnt hard. Now when ever I want to do some complicated task, I just write my own application for it!

The most wonderful thing about realbasic is the community that surrounds it. The guys on the mailing list are the nicest most helpful people in the world.

Sure RB has some drawbacks and some features are a bit rough, but no one else has got close to providing such an intuitive and beautiful way for the rest of us to make useful working applications.  
(Version 5.5.5)

TREE BEARD  I've written 2 small utility apps that ship with our company's product (which is developed by our "software developers" in Cocoa for Mac and .Net for Windows) and am currently working on a 3rd for internal use.

One of the great reasons to use REALBasic is to write Windows apps on your Mac. Or Linux apps! And of course, you can write Mac apps. All builds use the exact same source code.

REALBasic is easier than Java and offers nearly identical crossplatform benefits, with faster startup.

My only complaint is the lack of tutorials or references to performing Platform specific API calls to get advanced low-level behvior. Still, the majority of applications, and hence, app developers, don't need this.  
(Version 5.5.5)

ANONYMOUS  The main use for RB these days, now that we have Cocoa for Mac development, is if you have a lot of VB code and you want to port it to Linux.

If what you want is a Mac application, plese, please do everyone a favor and use Cocoa.  
(Version 5.5.5)

ANONYMOUS  hmm... i USED to use RB, but that was back in the days of programming where you had to write 500 lines of code just to show a window(i'm sure i'm exaggerating, but you get the idea). now, however, Apple has made development much easier(thanks Apple!), and finally you can write an app with a window, with no lines of code. you can even write an app with a web browser also, with no lines of code. also, cocoa is much faster and smaller than RB, because cocoa doesn't compile in a whole framework for everything it does, then interprets the language on-the-fly.

i don't know about you, but i'd rather use cocoa.  
(Version 5.5.5)

GOSTCODER  Two main things to note.

1) One of the drawbacks of RB is a perception that you must use plugins to extend it's functionality.

This is simply not true. The additional functions of most plugins could be incurred by writing API declare calls in REALbasic.

It seams that most RB plugins are developed as a mean to profit from lazy RB coders who either don't realize they can, or don't want to learn how, to write API declares themselves.

2) If Real Software were to change the underlying workings of RB to compile native code for each platform - instead of the current pre-compiled runtime architecture - then RB made applications would see a dramatic reduction in build size, and an increase in performance as well.

It is this second issue which is really holding RB back from becoming more widely accepted as a serious language.

Thank you,

GostCoder (Long time RB developer)  
(Version 5.5.4)

ANONYMOUS  Sweet, so I have to learn a "real" language before writing plugins... yeah sweet.  
(Version 5.5.4)

CHRIS  After reading some of the comments on here have to say, the the so-call "professional" programmers seem to be very blinkered, just because REALBasic isnt C they asume that no good software can be written using it, what ever development environment is you there will allways be good and bad software, yes even XCode developers write some poor applications. Yes some environments are better or more powerfull thatn others but at the end of the day its down to the telent of the programmer more than anything else.  
(Version 5.5.3)

ANONYMOUS  Go look at this page:

http://www.realsoftware.com/realbasic/compare/

You see those monkeys playing on the ground, with "c++" wrote above their heads?

Apparently the PR department doesn't realize REALbasic is wrote in C++, or they don't plan on you realizing it.

Cheers!  
(Version 5.5.3)

ANONYMOUS  Why can't I make REALbasic plugins with REALbasic?  
(Version 5.5.3)

MARCEL  impossible to create a light app with Real BAsic, it's too slow  
(Version 5.5.3)

ANONYMOUS  To knock REALbasic as "a click-together" RAD tool would be incorrect. It is certainly very complex and has much potential. If you are developing apps to be deployed on multiple platforms, REALbasic is a good choice. Even if you are a beginning OS X coder, it is very powerful compared to Applescript Studio. Cocoa developers often thrash RB users but...they have no real solid ground for thinking that RB is inferior. It's not about an application out of the box - it's about its potential. And while 800,000 lines of code seems a bit much I have certainly seen 8,000+ lines of code in RB projects.  
(Version 5.5.2)

CARRABOSSE  Nice app, but please stop the spams. I'm getting tons of special offers and things like that from Real Software.  
(Version 5.5.2)

BASTIBENSE  We are developing huge projects with REALbasic. Applications that have about 800.000 lines of code. No problems so far. :)  
(Version 5.5.2)

ANONYMOUS  Useful especially for cross-platform development. A little over-priced though  
(Version 5.5.2)

HARIKIRI  I'm a self-employed developer who was looking for a way to develop apps for Windows, whilst doing development on my Powerbook. I found RB, and while it takes a little getting used to (compared to for example - C), it does the job, and throws in Linux/GTK support as well.

Sure it's a little dinky, and not hardcore enough for certain programmers - but it satisfies one great requirement: multiplatform support with an easy learning curve. As a developer, that means I can provide my customers with Windows, OS X and Linux applications without having to change a line of code (more market for me, less work coding).

Java is an alternative if you want multiplatform support, and there's also Revolution, but after doing some investigating, it seemed like RB was the most mature and had the best community (free code!) out there.

I'd still be a little worried with larger applications, but for the time being, I'm sticking with RB.

Note: If my target market was solely OS X, I'd most likely have ended up using Xcode/Interface Builder instead.   
(Version 5.5.1)

ANONYMOUS  Hi,

RealBasic is getting better but if you are familiar with something like HyperCard / SuperCard go check out Revolution:

http://www.runrev.com/index_uk.html

It makes builds for Mac, Windows and Linux too...  
(Version 5.5)

PMACMAN  I don't know what the world needs, but I need a really simple development platform like an OSX version of Hypercard!!! I was hoping Xcode + Applescript would come close to Hypercard, not a chance! I want instant gritification! When I make a new button, I want to see that button functioning in some manner instantly, not after rebuilding (again).

Come on Apple make that old Hypercard code open source huh? I want to port some of my old staks, quickly and easily, damn it!  
(Version 5.5)

GOSTCODER  REALbasic is good for playing around with application ideas or quick spur-of-the-moment hack-jobs.

If you are hell-bent on making cross-platform software it's a good alternative to java.

The downside is that it compiles huge applications (2.5MB for a single window that does nothing, last time I checked), and has poor performance. Not to mention an assortment of stability issues.

Starting with RB 5.0 they seam to be heading downhill quality wise. Increased compile sizes and poorer debugging facilities.

I say this from experience. I wrote the Yahoo chat client ChitChat and know REALbasic's problems first hand.  
(Version 5.5)

PETER  What is wrong with $15 shareware?

Realbasic is easier to learn than C++. Sure, there are languages that make smaller, faster, and prettier apps, as expected from a professional programmer.

For the rest of us there is Realbasic.

I rememer when I started with C 25 years ago and my teacher said that C is easy to learn but to understand programming you need to learn assembly langauge. I rest my case.  
(Version 5.5)

DOUG KRUTH  Whether good or bad... Choice is the important factor here.

I personally use XCode... But there are times when I enjoy the simplicity of RealBasic (when I say simplicity, that does not meant a substitute in quality)

Could I omit RealBasic (yes), but I wouldn't want to! Why... Choice.

For all the nay sayers... take note: Any company (including Microsoft) that can encourage the mind to explore and create is not bad. The world needs creativity!

(not elitist programmers)  
(Version 5.5)

RBCRASHLOG  Ah yes, and now we hear from the 12 year olds that think we, you know us real programmers, are somehow putting them down and don't realize that in fact we're just stating the facts: REALbasic is evil.

It's sole purpose has been as a goldmine for the Microsoftian RealSoftware.

Look man, there's no excuse for swearing and it sounds like you need to get those self-esteem issues looked at after you apologize. And if REALbasic is sooo great, why does Real use C++ and CodeWarrior to write it then?

To Ralf Papenfuss:

"the REALbasic programmers must settle up the job"

Settle up to what job? Another $15 shareware TextEdit clone??  
(Version 5.5a12)

JOHN HALBIG  Ah yes, thus we hear from the "real" programmers the abject terror that people might actually write their own software rather than hire some self absorbed elitist who spends most of his development time coming up with ways to avoid fixing their design flaws and calling bugs "feature misunderstood by the end user" (riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight).

I've been a believer in RealBasic as the software tool for the rest of us since it's first release, pushing it on the EvangeList during it's glory days and using it myself to create specialized in house software to support servers and monitor UPS' and the like. I've also seen some kick-ass products created using RealBasic.

Don't like them or the product? Don't use them. And don't expect to mouth off about it and not be challenged, especially if you're too chicken sh*t to put your name to your whining.  
(Version 5.5a12)

RALF PAPENFUSS  If the "REAL programmers" do not find a solution, then the REALbasic programmers must settle up the job :)

I like REALbasic!  
(Version 5.5a12)

ANONYMOUS  The choice of the programming language is not a warranty for the quality of the produced programs.  
(Version 5.5a12)

ANONYMOUS  REAL programmers use a REAL language, and that ain't BASIC, folks. REAL programmers learn what happens "under the hood" instead of clicking and dragging.

Thanks, Real, for giving novices a vehicle to write lousy software quickly and flood the boards with it.  
(Version 5.5a12)

CHRIS  Arash: that's exactly how it should work - your application is launched as a separate process as it would be the final project. That's how Xcode works as well.  
(Version 5.5a10)

ARASH MAFI  REALbasic 5.5a9 is a great tool to program with I am really happy that realsoftware is making all these goodies for us programmer, but I dont like one thing in it, Each time i try to run my program in IDE it compiles the App and runs the compiled very dumb!!!.  
(Version 5.5a9)

PATHOS  I love RealBasic and thousands of users love the two apps I've created with RealBasic. Check them out: freePhotoConverter and FinderView. Both use the plugins form MonkeyBread Software. Great plugins!  
(Version 5.5a9)

PAWN  REALbasic is a very vital piece of software to the mac community.. It provides us a way to VERY rapidly develope software, and is a easy way to start learning how to program. Its exciting to see results in your own program so fast within just a few hours or programing. Using realbasic i've learned much about how certain protocols work in applications and i've also began to understand how C++ works..

I only feel that REALbasic needs major optimization in its Carbon applications. I've heard rumor that a Mach-0 compiler is in the works for realbasic. this i asume would bring native controls to mac os x and hopefully will optimize the interface of realbasic apps for os x!  
(Version 5.5a6)

RBCRASHLOG  Having problems w/ Rb v4 (a 28 entry long Crash Log, in about 2 weeks time) I contacted REAL Software. They told me to upgrade to v4.5. So, I then asked them, if v4.5 was stable. Simple enough, right? Here's their response:

"We are addressing the problems that are causing this. I can't say whether it is stable or not because stable means different things to different people.

A big compiler change in 5.0 should most of the problems. Most are actually caused by running your project in the same thread that the IDE runs in. That will change in 5.0.

We are not ignoring the problem but only you can decide if REALbasic is stable." - REAL Software

After spending close to a year, working around Rb's quirks, bugs and limitations, I speak only from experience when I say: "Don't waste your time with REALbasic."

Cocoa has magnitudes more power/speed/stability/etc and isn't [i]that[/i] much harder to learn.  
(Version 5.5a3)

HECKLER  I find it quite odd that so called real programers have nothing better to do than use this to cry about other peoples programs. It looks like a bunch of wanna bees with nothing better to do. If you guys are programers of any worth, than show them how it's done. But please quite whinning like spinless little kids. This program isn't perfect but, if you know how to program you can figure a way around it.  
(Version 5.5a3)

ANONYMOUS  As a Cocoa programmer, my opinion of RB is that it's a good environment for learning programming, but a poor environment for writing actual programs, and unfortunately Real Software doesn't tell people this so download sites get littered with RB software by novices.  
(Version 5.5a1)

BASTI  REALbasic is a very good and powerful development environment for professionals and hobbyists and there is a lot of good software out there. Unfortunately REALSoftware tells everyone they can make good software with it, so they go buy a book, create a text editor and release YET another TextEdit. This hurts.  
(Version 5.5a1)

ANONYMOUS  Please, kill this dog... Or we will get more crappy, ugly, slow sharewares from people who think they can make an application because Real Software told them so...  
(Version 5.5a1)

ANONYMOUS  Its a pretty good development environment. For learning objective development none is better. For making applications it really isn't professional. Learn realbasic then quickly move onto C, then ObjC and Cocoa. If you really want to go for C++. Overall its not daunting to make realbasic a viable environment.  
(Version 5.2)

HEAVY_BABY  TCPSocket have a bug.

Sending large amount of buffer kills TCPSocket. And Send Complete event dosen't fired!  
(Version 5.2fc5)

TIM BROWN  Can't get it to come off? Drag it out of the trash back to applications and then try this:

Open Terminal

cd /Applications

sudo rm -rf Real

That should do it.  
(Version 5.2fc5)

NONAME  If you're into making games (not apps) then try TNT Basic. It's a simplified code version of RB, except there's no visuals at all. Plus its only 15 pounds.

tntbasic.com  
(Version 5.1fc4)

ANONYMOUS  it causes a kernel panic when you try and remove it from the system. horrible horrible bug. ive tried dragging to the trash and deleting it...ive also tried to remove the file though the terminal. it crashed both ways. horrible. i love RB...but this is totally unexceptable.  
(Version 5.1fc4)

ANONYMOUS  A good IDE to start programming. Build appz are fast and stable. Access to system functions via declares and a good ui builder.

Unfornately IDE is not stable as previous releases but that is caused by the new compiler which surely will be improved.  
(Version 5.0)

HALEYBEN  Anyone else having problems taking it off of their mac? I tried to delete the file and it make my mac restart. I am running 10.2.4 and have never had consistent crashes like this. Even when using Trash it! It starts to delete it then crashes and makes me manually turn the cpu off. Please can someone help me find a way to figure this out.  
(Version 5.0)

ANONYMOUS  Great dev tool. 5.0 has some bumps due to new compiler, but still, it's the best RAD tool I ever used.  
(Version 5.0)

ALEX  Fir all we know the anomenus guy could be from REALSoftware. But I must admit it is a realy good development platform. But if you've got the time it's well worth the effort to learn Java.   
(Version 5.0)

ANONYMOUS  Simply the most productive development environment even for Win32 programming. I luv it and have used for more then 4 years...Gets better every time.  
(Version 5.0)

RBCRASHLOG  Sucks as much, or possibly even more, as every other version.

Take the money you'd spend on Rb and buy a good Cocoa book instead.

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/learncocoa/

http://developer.apple.com/cocoa/

Everyone should read http://perversiontracker.com/ before downloading this.  
(Version 5.0)