Xojo Web 2.0 review on AlwaysBusy’s Corner


Well, he really knows what he is talking about. He created a whole web framework for B4X web apps. An yes, after 3 years of developement it is a shame what the conclusion is:

“I really hope for Xojo Inc. this is some kind of public ‘pre-alpha’ release and by the end of the year I can re-test this with better results.”


He started the web framework in Xojo but couldn’t succeed, so gave B4x a try … Xojo’s loss, B4x’s gain.


I can second the observations. A lot of Javascripts around even for not used controls. The footprint is quite ancient and nothing for regular websites.

Just wrote a new Feedback on WebMenus. They are shown in wrong order above and not below MenuItems when collapsed to a Hamburger-Menu on small screensizes and therefore not usable for me (cause I lknow my clients).

But I do not worry, there is an unwritten rule: Never use .0 release…

B4 s no option due its Java Bloatware behind.

Can you point me to where there is bloatware in the OpenJDK? I have the feeling a lot of you guys did check out Java a decade ago and have a prejudice against it. If I check out a compiled Xojo app, there are also a lot of .dll files needed nowadays (loved the RB days when a single .exe file could be created of about 3MB :smile: ).

The installation of Xojo alone takes up 2.3GB for each version (and we all know we’ll need several versions to be installed depending on what is fixed in which version).

BANano’s final result does not need Java at all, as it is pure Javascript/CSS/HTML.

1 Like

I dont understand why people waste their money and time rushing if it is well know that new “big” features are allways Beta quality, (and some times alpha)

Well, in windows a compiled Xojo app with no more than a button is 33 Mb, the stand alone java version in B4J is 47 Mb But, add some extra functionality to Xojo and increases very fast, so, there is not really a noticeable difference

1 Like

The folks who have no long term “investment” and jump on “the latest & greatest” because they can reasonably simply do
The other might be because some critical bug is fixed

Are you including the Windows DLL’s for the c runtime ?
Those can be skipped since MS now treats those as part of Windows and, excepting Windows 7, they are preinstalled
As you add more built in controls (buttons list boxes etc) the dll size doesnt grow as they are only needed one (JDK’s are the same way)

My main complaint with Java is that it never quite behaves native
There are always little tell tale signs that its not a native app - at least one the desktop

A 64 bit HelloWorld.exe in PureBasic is just 56KB

Procedure ButtonHandler()
MessageRequester(“Message”,“Hello, World!”,0)

OpenWindow(0, 100, 100, 200, 90, “Click test”, #PB_Window_SystemMenu)
ButtonGadget(0, 10, 10, 180, 30, “Click me”)
BindGadgetEvent(0, @ButtonHandler())

Event = WaitWindowEvent()
Until Event = #PB_Event_CloseWindow


Howdy Steve W !

Hi, good to hear from you

We have fun here :stuck_out_tongue:

I’ve noticed, I’ve read some of the threads :smiley:

It’s good that we have somewhere we can weigh up the alternatives to Xojo

1 Like

Those are just 1.7 Mb, and to avoid problems with the way Xojo uses it, it is better to allways incluede them.

That is not entirely true, if you add a built in control like HTML viewer, it adds an extra DLL as native render, but hundreds of files an extra 115Mb as chromekit.

But, I said “extra functionality”, many functions add extra DLLs like RegEx.dll, Shell.dll, SQLiteDatabase.dll, SSLSocket.dll, XML.dll, media.dll, Internet Encodings.dll, Crypto.dll, Appearance Pak.dll, etc, etc

Add 1 html viewer it adds that plugin
Add 100 html viewers it add that plugin - once
Thats all I meant
Some plugins bundle several controls into one plugin (Appearance Pak for instance) and some are one plugin per class

Ja maybe I am somehow primed on Java cause I am following it for decades since it came up mid 90ies by Sun. Since then I read the same banners still today “Java runs everywhere” bla bla bla… I simply hate it, always did. The fact you need different JDKs remindes me to DLL hell on windows or ADODB dependencies where each version brought another easter egg…

I am running a business, supporting existing software. The Xojo Pro license is just included in my other operational costs like phone, servers, office, etc. In my understanding I support Xojo Inc with my regular payments helping them to plan in long-terms. Yes there are all the downsides and problems with Web 2.0, the unfinished 2020 release, the missing love for Linux and open-source at all… but Xojo is quite useable in many other aspects and I (still) rely on it.

did not said this! But I second your point that Java always felt quite alien in every OS. I am still having ugly SWING classes in my mind… Bäh…

That sounds a bit like jealousy… :smiley:

But indeed, that is the view of a decade ago. A lot has changed since. Absolutely no need to have different JDKs. In fact, Xojo is a lot worse. I remember having many versions of it installed on my PC, and for every project well documented with which version is was made to avoid breaking stuff by opening it in the wrong version. No such thing in B4X.

Absolutely! It has however sometimes more to do with licensing and being allowed to that by the major players like Apple and Microsoft than not being able to have that native look. There are several Open Source projects that show it is possible (after all, in Java the UI can be changed by CSS and you can make anything look how you want: MacOS, Metro-UI, …), but they are restricted to do so by copyright rules.

I mainly do Web so I don’t even have that problem. :wink:

If only Xojo would’ve stayed doing what they excelled in: desktop. But I understand. If after 22 years you are still not a (major) player, you probably never will. So one grasps at straws, tries to jump on the mobile/web train, having absolutely no experience in those fields. The result is the state it is in now: being mediocre. A shame really…

A couple of rebrands, abandoned apis, reverting a mayor event renamig because they finally understand the huge mistake after publishing depite months of warnings, users having 3 different versions of Xojo to avoid a complete rewrite of some proyects because they broke backwards compatibility, etc… That doesn’t sound long term planned :rofl:

Well, hard to resist but I have to defend Xojo a little bit…

I remember just one :Realbasic to Xojo… and that’s a decade ago isn’t it?

again, I remember just one API not multiple ones as you are suggesting.

never got warm with the new API couple of years ago and something told me not to start a new project with it. Time has proven me right.

Well this is the only valid point I could agree with… but… :slight_smile: I recall my experiences between 2002 and 2007 in which Microsoft released in very short time frame plenty of .NET changes. I remember myself how I startet a major project back in those time with .NET 1.0 and finished it with 2.0. Nobody paid for all the changes made in the API. As somebody coming from VB6 I hated Microsoft for this. As soon as Apple announced iPhone, I’ve made the switch and left Microsoft as platform at all. Hence, today I am about doing the same with macOS switching over to Debian Linux as my main development platform. Due poor support of Xojo, Xojo could end up as collateral damage when I am doing the switch :wink: