PureBasic Forums - English

[Edit] Sadly, I've found many niggling issues and bugs with RocketCake since my initial post below, so I can't recommend it anymore. It wasn't until I got really into it, that I realised how lacking it is in some basic web functionality, too. On the RocketCake forum I was always posting feature requests and making bug reports, and I realised I didn't want to be doing that. I also noticed that its EULA allows it to send a list of your installed apps to them silently! Upgrade (buy) it at your own risk, and don't let my posts and enthusiasm in this thread guide your decision to buy.

I was looking for a WYSIWYG website builder yesterday and found this little gem: RocketCake (Free, with optional upgrade for Pro features).

The reason I'm posting it here is because it has the same conceptual feel as PureBasic: it generates small, tight, HTML5 web pages that have no bloat, and produces very clean code. The IDE for it is even like PureBasic's form editor, which objects placed on the page which you can click, move, resize, and edit with Property boxes, etc. It also has a preview mode for all types of devices (iPhones, etc).

When I was looking for a small, efficient, clean coding language, I found PureBasic. Now that I need a small, efficient, and clean website editor, I found RocketCake.

(And no, I do NOT know its author, nor have any financial interest in it).

Thank you, this is indeed a hidden gem. I have been trying to find a web editor I like, and free or $$, I have not been able to find one that seems intuitive to me and that I can grasp.

Unfortunately, it seems my days of programming are behind me, as I can't seem to relearn it. But, I still need a site for my musical stuff. RocketCake looks like it will meet my needs and the paid version is very reasonable.

Yep, using RocketCake feels like using PureBasic. I think it's developed by a single person too (from what I see on the website), which is fine by me because you get better support that way. That's how PureBasic started so I have no problem with it. RocketCake also seems to be portable software: after installation, I copied its folder elsewhere (to my portable drive) and uninstalled the default C: folder, and it still ran fine -- just like PureBasic. Nice!

I've always lamented the fact that I don't know how to code responsive HTML5 websites, and RocketCake makes it easy. No more using Notepad to update my crappy-looking site anymore.

Dude wrote:...it has the same conceptual feel as PureBasic: it generates small, tight, HTML5 web pages that have no bloat, and produces very clean code...

...it's developed by a single person too (from what I see on the website), which is fine by me because you get better support that way.

Basic web development tools merely generate unobfuscated HTML/JavaScript code, which could then be modified and used directly and independently. So, the dependability of the tool itself shouldn't be much of a concern.

PureBasic, on the other hand, is a multi-platform compiler, without which our non-asm codes are worthless. There's no way to convert PureBasic code into executable binaries without its compiler, and thus support from the development team is critically imperative.

TI-994A wrote:There's no way to convert PureBasic code into executable binaries without its compiler, and thus support from the development team is critically imperative.

Okay... but support from any developer is also critically imperative if you want their product to be improved and/or bug-fixed. I've had tonnes of apps where the developer doesn't give a damn about their users and have left their app to rot, but both PureBasic and RocketCake have active, friendly developers who release updates often, and reply to users on their forums. This is a Good Thing when choosing a product.

Dude wrote:...support from any developer is also critically imperative if you want their product to be improved and/or bug-fixed. I've had tonnes of apps where the developer doesn't give a damn about their users and have left their app to rot, but both PureBasic and RocketCake have active, friendly developers who release updates often, and reply to users on their forums. This is a Good Thing when choosing a product.

Without sounding cynical, it's still early days for RocketCake, which was introduced just over two years ago. And even though the developers seems to have a host of other tools on offer, their support models are yet to be tried and tested.

It's highly unjustifiable to compare any aspect of it with PureBasic's proven track record. Truly one of a kind.

I was just about to program a similar tool for myself, so this tip comes in handy. Thank you very much!

I think this is the developer: http://www.irrlicht3d.org/impressum.html

Yes, it is the same guy. Never knew he was the developer of Irrlicht3d! There's a PureBasic wrapper for Irrlicht3d here: http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 27&t=24164

I am truly loving this. Dude, you are a life-saver (in more ways than one). It feels good to be designing my own site again and not relying on the webbuilder that is built into my hosting service.

Look also here
I self use this for a long time, it's free : "Expression Web 4"
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downloa ... x?id=36179

walbus wrote:Look also here
I self use this for a long time, it's free : "Expression Web 4"
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downloa ... x?id=36179

Yeah, I tried that as well. I prefer the simplicity of RocketCake.

Interesting
So i must make a look for this Rocket, i love simple things....

My only wish for RocketCake was that it had spell-check.

Dude wrote:...it generates small, tight, HTML5 web pages that have no bloat, and produces very clean code...

Such visual builders tend to overuse divisions and obscure element IDs, and generate grossly unstructured and bloated style sheets which favour IDs over classes. So, they do not generate small, tight, clean code with no bloat.

Frivolous use of IDs clutters the code, and unnecessarily long HTML pages with arbitrary divisions slows rendering and performance. Even if these are of little concern, they tend to be difficult to edit or modify manually. Moreover, such manual modifications cannot be re-integrated into the builder's source files, and would essentially be lost when new files are generated, reverting to their original forms and structures. Furthermore, these builders rarely include debuggers, resulting in tedious debugging when JavaScript code is involved. So, users are effectively locked-in to the respective builders for any and all modifications, which means that manual code cleanup or optimisation is impossible.

For websites selling professional software services, a simple right-click to inspect the page source would readily reveal these shortcomings, quickly dissuading potential customers.

Just some noteworthy points to consider.