VB 6 successor claimed

[IdeasVacuum]

https://adtmag.com/blogs/dev-watch/2015 ... essor.aspx

I think PB is already the successor

[Keya]

I just read the article and tried this B4J "VB6 successor" myself. My experience...

Im using XP-32. First it wanted me to install .NET 4.... ok fine, i'll grumble and go and download and install that. Bad hair day anyway.
Done.

Now I can run the B4J IDE ... it pops up with an example, just a blank form which is missing a Hello World title:

Code: Select all

Sub Process_Globals
  Private fx As JFX
  Private MainForm As Form
End Sub

Sub AppStart (Form1 As Form, Args() As String)
  MainForm = Form1
  MainForm.SetFormStyle("UNIFIED")
  MainForm.Show
End Sub

But it won't let me compile it, because it wants me to configure its paths where I have to find javac.exe, the Java Compiler, which I dont have...

Ok, so I download the Java development kit, off the worlds slowest server. Half an hour and a hundred and fifty megs later, and Java SDK is now installed. I can now point it at javac.exe.

Now I ensure im in Release mode, and click Compile.

It then builds a 289kb .JAR file to display this empty Hello World window. (I open it in 7Zip and it shows there are 197 files, mostly .class, totalling 585kb)

It does not compile to .EXE.

And from the B4J website...

Q: What are the requirements for UI apps developed with B4J?
A: It is highly recommended to use Java 8.

They make it sound optional? but i dont think it is! So users of your software will also need Java installed.

I think I prefer VB6 with its single 1mb runtime (that comes with all Windows for the last two decades anyway) and native reasonably small EXE compilation. And I prefer Purebasic over VB6.

Ok i uninstall Java and .NET now

[Kukulkan]

If a JAVA backend is suitable, maybe JaBaCo is also an alternative. It claims very good VB6 compatibility (not tested): http://www.jabaco.org/ (sadly, it does not seem very active)

If it only needs to be close to VB6, this is also an interesting variant: http://gambas.sourceforge.net/en/main.html (Linux only?)

[HanPBF]

It's not about the syntax; even PB has a a somewhat special syntax (Var.type or *S.SStruct).

If I would appreciate using the crap stack .NET or JAVA provides, I would use those langs natively.

It's about the speed of development and the exe.

[yoxola]

Actually I did some test you can actually "trim" the JRE to under 3MB (750KB packed) to work with B4J.

It works well but the process of trim/test your JRE configuration is a pain, and I must say it's not an easy task, including VB runtime is easier IMHO.

[HanPBF]

VB6 was easy, it was fast (compiler and precode runtime).

You can download it today as portable exe.
You could run CodeJock Xtreme ActiveX natively; intellisense included.
You have to install this on every PC with admin rights -> bang!
(or use evalaze or enigma virtual box to make it portable)

[heartbone]

https://adtmag.com/blogs/dev-watch/2015 ... essor.aspx

I think PB is already the successor

Just like Windows® 7 is the "sweet spot" of desktop operating systems,
PureBasic is the "sweet spot" of desktop programming languages.

Until it gets on cable TV, it won't be known to the masses.

[TI-994A]

It requires the JDK and the .NET framework for development, and then the JRE to run the developed apps?

IMHO, PureBasic towers over VB6, and B4J, outperforming them exponentially.

Simply no contest.