Howdy Steve W !
Hi, good to hear from you
We have fun here
I’ve noticed, I’ve read some of the threads
It’s good that we have somewhere we can weigh up the alternatives to Xojo
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…
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.
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
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… 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
I think it was Realbasic, RealStudio, Xojo and originally even CrossBasic (not sure about that last one)
You had the original framework, then the new Framework and now API 2
The company renamed from REALSoftware to Xojo
The IDE renamed from REALbasic to REAL Studio to Xojo
It did originally start out as Crossbasic before REALSoftware existed
The classic API (API 1) and the Xojo framework used primarily for iOS, and now API 2
Unfortunately - I’ve detailed a few times why it was the way it was and it was actually optional and broke no existing code - unlike API 2
Why does Xojo always have to make things sound so complicated using terms like ‘preemptive threads’? Is this done deliberately to make the OP uncomfortable so he stops asking? Or is it a trick the engineers also use to keep Geoff of their back?
Just say as it is: Sorry, no, Web 2.0 can not do this, not because it is complicated, but because we took some decisions that make this impossible. Our long term plan didn’t take into account PWAs are coming fast.
just like his over-use of “ad hominem attack”… a snooty way of say “persoal attack”
Sometimes it seems they are trying to “educate” people who seem to be technically knowledgeable about the subject. And that education is “here why this is complicated or not easy”
Having been on the other end of this sometimes saying “well here’s where what you’re asking for is hard to do …” can be better than just saying “no we cant do that”. How so ? Saying we cant do that can lead to a lot of “Well why not” and on and on down that rabbit hole
BUT, saying why its hard also can lead to the “well if you just did xy then …” on and on as well
There’s no perrfect way to respond unfortunately
Another review of Xojo, Filemaker and more
Keep in mind that some won’t and probably should not move their apps. If I had a large web app that was working fine and was likely to reach the end of its life in the next 5 years, moving it to Web Framework 2.0 would not be an attractive option. However, if I didn’t know how long it would be in use and liked some of the benefits of Web Framework 2.0, I’d be considering it.
IF you are one of these folks that should not (Geoffs advice) then your options really are sucky since you cant use the latest version (no web 1.0 in it) and are stuck with using an older vesrion which will NEVER get any more fixes.
That exactly is one thing I always wanted to ask you @npalardy : what do you mean with not behaving quite native? Differences in File Chooser and so on? Cause the rest behavior of Windows is the same in my eyes. I would be happy to get what your problem is with Java cause maybe it will be also a future Problem for me.