Xojo Developers

[vdubeau]

Just curious if there are any other XOJO developers here checking out PureBasic as an alternative.

[PeDe]

I used RealStudio for a few years and then Xojo. The Xojo IDE has become too slow for me and my old PC. I have been using PureBasic on Windows for several years now, and get along much better with it.
I like best that I can create windows, controls, events etc. only by code. The threads are a boon, and the IDE and offline help is very good. When I switched, this forum helped me a lot. I always found a solution when I had a problem.
I do not miss anything from Xojo.

Peter

[swan]

I'm not a XOJO developer I got it for a small project recently. It will never draw me away from PB as my main package though.
Overall I didn't mind it except for it's enormous overhead, also can't see why it's so expensive. To each their own ....

[Caronte3D]

I was an RealBasic user and never switched to Xojo because the abusive license price.
Now several years with PureBasic and I'm in love with it

[Cyllceaux]

I used RealBasic and Xojo since 2006. But after I discovered PB, I stopped working with Xojo.

[pjsmith67]

I bought PB several years ago while still using XOJO but kept using that. I finally decided last year to switch. The last straw for me was their price increase. I wasn't going to pay $400/year just so I could use version control.

PB, while maybe not as capable as XOJO, is *so* much faster.... XOJO's IDE has become a monster.

Phil

[the.weavster]

PB, while maybe not as capable as XOJO, is *so* much faster.... XOJO's IDE has become a monster.

I had a large project I'd created in realStudio but even that had a helper app written in PB that did some of the heavy lifting in the background.

There were really two things that made me move on from realStudio (Xojo):
1) The rather nice realStudio IDE being replaced by the Xojo stinker.
2) Einhugur's announcement their StyleGrid would never be available as 64bit.

I even hate the name 'Xojo', to me it sounds like baby-talk, they may as well have named it 'Goo-goo'.

Having said that there are deficiencies that mean I can't always use PB when I'd really like to ...

1) The gadgets are too limited to make it a good choice for desktop apps.
2) The outdated WebGadget limits your ability to work around 1.
3) The lack of TLS limits PB's use for application servers (which is how I like to implement most projects these days).
4) The RunProgram() with #PB_PROGRAM_WRITE bug.

[Cyllceaux]

I wasn't going to pay $400/year just so I could use version control.

How? Since 2012 I payed 699€ each year.

But I loved the gadgets of RB/Xojo... I loved it, how easy it was to create new gadgets or update existing ones.
AND I liked the llvm of the scripting on compiler.

But the IDE is slow... extreme slow and the apps are extreme big, cause of the runtimes and the security aspect.

[pjsmith67]

I wasn't going to pay $400/year just so I could use version control.

How? Since 2012 I payed 699€ each year.

But I loved the gadgets of RB/Xojo... I loved it, how easy it was to create new gadgets or update existing ones.
AND I liked the llvm of the scripting on compiler.

But the IDE is slow... extreme slow and the apps are extreme big, cause of the runtimes and the security aspect.

Desktop version is $399/year, Pro version is $799 after the price increase.

[vdubeau]

I was using the Desktop version for the database access but $399/year is tough especially on a fixed income. The price of aPureBasic lifetime license is awesome. Definitely a bit of a learning curve over XOJO But is OOP really that important. Most of my programming career was spent with procedure languages like BAISC, FORTRAN, COBOL and RPG.

[pjsmith67]

I was using the Desktop version for the database access but $399/year is tough especially on a fixed income. The price of aPureBasic lifetime license is awesome. Definitely a bit of a learning curve over XOJO But is OOP really that important. Most of my programming career was spent with procedure languages like BAISC, FORTRAN, COBOL and RPG.

I could get around not having database access but having to pay $399 for version control was the deal breaker for me. And then throw in the fiasco with API 2.0....

OOP is nice, but not *that* important. I did have to rewire my brain a bit with Purebasic.

[vdubeau]

I agree with you about API 2.0. I get compiler errors when trying their DB examples from the documentation. My biggest issue with PB right now is learning how to programmatically use the gadgets as opposed to XOJO's controlls.

[sdawilson]

Our team is migrating old MS Access / Excel apps for UK government departments (too many to mention), we tried XOJO for a while (the last version was 2021r1) and on the whole, we liked it. Coming from VB6 and VBA, it wasn't too hard to transition. XOJO has pretty slick database handling and tight forms integration. If I have one criticism of PB, it's the database handling. Having persevered with the language, I really like it. However, while PB has extensive graphics capabilities, I really wish some more of the focus was around building business apps with better database management and perhaps business charting, textbox / number and string formatting, bound controls, etc... something most general purpose languages overlook.

We are exploring replicating all of the missing VB6 / VBA functions and control properties as widget widget properties in PB. We don't think class modules are too much of an issue and we love the runtime speed of PB. XOJO was slow.

[percy_b]

I had a Real Basic license years ago. Still, I abandoned it because I needed to consider a tool that supplied a smoother transition from VB6. Power Basic Forms and Power Basic for Windows were a better transition for VB6 programmers. However, I became disappointed by Power Basic's lack of direction after the death of its founder.

Pure Basic was a pleasant surprise for me. I quickly replaced VB6 events with procedure calls in the event loop. Regarding database support, Pure Basic's database support is excellent and quite functional.

[deeproot]

Pure Basic was a pleasant surprise for me. I quickly replaced VB6 events with procedure calls in the event loop. Regarding database support, Pure Basic's database support is excellent and quite functional.

Totally agree - I was another VB6 to PureBasic convert! My main application is entirely driven by a big database so it moved from MS Jet (Access) to SQLite. For my purposes the the PureBasic/SQLite combination has been perfect. After getting used to the language, DB implementation was excellent and converting my existing data no problem. Since then the performance and reliability has been outstanding. Also in some areas I was pushing the boundaries of Jet's capabilities, but no such issues with the PureBasic DB.

In context of the original topic: Back when looking for a VB6 alternative, having rejected VB.Net, I first investigated RealBASIC as it was then called, along with several others including C++ and Lazarus. But PureBasic was clearly much better suited to my needs in every respect. That was well over 10 years ago and never regretted the decision.