Looking for Basic for OSX.

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Wed Aug 04, 2004 2:34 pm

Well, while we are waiting close to 2-4 years for PB for OSX may catch up to PB for Windows. Does anybody know of a good Basic for OSX? Ive heard of RealBasic, but are there any others w/ links?

I do not have 2 - 4 years to wait for PB.

olejr · Post by **olejr** » Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:30 pm

Here's some:
http://www.strout.net/macweb.cgi?dir=/P ... ages/BASIC

LarsG · Post by **LarsG** » Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:46 pm

I don't believe the Mac version of PB is 2-4 years ahead...
If I'm not completely off, I recall Fred mentioning that the Mac version is planned to be released together with the other platforms' v.4... (or atleast somewhere around there..)
The Mac version, hopefully being at a v.4 level by that stage..

Someone flame me if I'm wrong here...

Still, Mark Sibly was gunning for a Mac release of BlitzMax late this month, but I have a hunch it'll be delayed a bit more... Still it can't be that far away, and you might want to wait for that release though (my bet would be late September or early October)...
I know I'm looking forward to it... (well.. the Windows verison atleast..)

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Thu Aug 05, 2004 1:00 am

No, Windows PB is 2 - 4 years ahead

I mean, look at the progress of when PB Linux was released, and the amount of time to get where it is at, and it is STILL does not have the features PB Windows have. (required for cross-platform coding).

As for the version numbers, Fred said the exact same concerning PB 3.91 for Linux and Windows... however, PB Linux still do not have all the features PB Windows have. Yet they have the exact same version number ? ????????!?!?!?!? Fred did an explaination concerning versioning, where as PB Linux 3.91 have less features (sometimes missing whole libraries) when compared to PB Windows 3.91. Either way, its the first I ever heard of this versioning scheme, which threw me and quite a few other people off, majorly.

So, When the PB OSX comes out, I believe it will not be 4.x perse as compared to PB Windows, it will be 2 - 4 years lagging behind just as PB Linux.

The above isnt a flame, it's just recapping previous threads here, Fred's responses, and analyzing previous releases of PB of all platforms...

LarsG · Post by **LarsG** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:32 am

Yes, I know, Fred has been setting the version numbering on the state the compiler was in, and not the commands and libraries the platform had.
This threw me off as well.. It is very misleading..

Even so, I do believe Fred is implementing the Mac version with a (real) version which is, perhaps not at equal with the windows version, but fairly close to it..
I do not have inside information on this subject though, so we might want to wait until Fred gets back from his vacation, and let him answer this..

griz · Post by **griz** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:54 pm

I used Real Basic on the Mac years ago. It's nice in many ways. However, it creates large bloated applications ... most unlike Pure Basic.

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:58 pm

Yeah, it looks like im going to have to spend a few thousands to buy the windows & mac versions of RealBasic

But thats sorta ok, as I will need to get an Mac w/ OSX laptop here by the end of the year. Hmm, thanks for the info anyways guys

fsw · Post by **fsw** » Sat Aug 07, 2004 4:27 am

Shannara wrote: Yeah, it looks like im going to have to spend a few thousands to buy the windows & mac versions of RealBasic

RealBasic

This reminds me of Andrew Berry (he created what is now known as RealBasic), he started to write a new Basic language.
It works under OSX (his main os), Linux, Windows (all still in early stage).
He will offer 2 different licenses: GPL and commercial.
Maybe you are interested in: extremebasic.com

Randy Walker · Post by **Randy Walker** » Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:21 pm

I don't know what an OSX is but this is the link that lead me to PureBasic.
http://basic.mindteq.com/

They offer a little blurb on each of the vaious BASICs available.

I think "True BASIC" is the only one that "claims" to run on any OS, but I will leave you to make your own accessment. They claim to generate exe's of a sort (without explaination) and talk about "wrapper" stuff, which is all over my head. Something you seem to know something about so maybe you can figure out what they are offering. I couldn't.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:54 pm

From what I understand PB 4.0 will be released MacOSX, AmigaOS, Windows & Linux

BlitzMax is just about ready for the market but without any 3D engine to speak of for the time being, it is being released on MacOSX first then sometimes next year for Windows once all the 3D Engine and such are in-place.

Really speaking though, there is far more information out there to use C/C++ on the MacOSX, especially as it comes with C++ (AppleScript is also very simplistic and nice to use).
Apple's developers library is almost as large as Microsofts but not quite as simple to navigate. Still offers some very good support.

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:04 pm

Raven wrote:From what I understand PB 4.0 will be released MacOSX, AmigaOS, Windows & Linux

True, however, as mentioned earlier in this thread, and according to PB's history, the MacOSX version of PB will most likely be behind the Windows version (in features and about everything else) by at least 3 years, dispite the version number. Which is something you gotta watch out for in PB, the versioning is different then every other product out there.

Version 4.x of Linux is not the same as version 4.x of windows, same with amiga, and quite likely OSX.

As for Extreme Basic, it looks almost nifty, but it looks like the author made the mistake of requiring runtime libraries.... So Extreme Basic is off my list, the last thing I want is more bloat, and the author isnt bright enough to know that runtime libraries = big turn off for any decent coder.

Randy Walker · Post by **Randy Walker** » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:59 pm

Shannara wrote:runtime libraries = big turn off for any decent coder.

Can't speak for other indecent coders, but I don't want any runtime garbage either.

Runtimes :roll: Personally I think anything that includes or depends on runtimes should be passed on only as freeware exercises for new developers, if not banned completely.

techjunkie · Post by **techjunkie** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:29 am

griz wrote:I used Real Basic on the Mac years ago. It's nice in many ways. However, it creates large bloated applications ... most unlike Pure Basic.

I agree, but it's nice to have executables for Mac OSX, Mac OS 8-9 (Classic), Windows 98/NT/2000/XP and Linux/x86 generated at the same time.

It's rather expensive too - Real Basic...

LarsG · Post by **LarsG** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:40 pm

Raven wrote:... it is being released on MacOSX first then sometimes next year for Windows once all the 3D Engine and such are in-place.

Where did you get this imformation?
It's true, BlitzMax is being released for MacOS first..
But the windows version is supposed to be released shortly after.. not next year.. at least that's how I understood the info.. The 3D module though, is going to be released later...

Raven · Post by **Raven** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:28 pm

Marc wants to get the 3D Engine fully finished before releasing BlitzMax to the public.

Reason behind this is quite simply Mac users are happy to sit there and test the program, but Windows users (which was echoed in the announcement thread of the Mac release) quite frankly want everything that Blitz3D currently can do.
Without it it won't be able to compete in the nitchÃ© 3D market where most of it's clients come from.

I didn't say it would take an *exact* year... simply that it is going to be released sometime next year, whereas the Mac version is set for release within a few months. I would suspect that the 3D Engine is going to take around 2months atleast to be upto specs, remember they're using OpenGL this time not DirectX so alot of interface work has to be long hand. Simpler but more time spent coding.

The Mac version won't be devoid of 3D Commands, you have the full OpenGL API exposes for you. Most Windows users didn't seems to like the idea of just a 2D Engine though.

sensible plan really, he's using Mac as a test bed before Windows gets things.