porter
Well-known member
Now, BASIC, I think I could have a crack at.is still a good choice for RAD.
Code:
10 LET ME$="OUT OF HERE"
Now, BASIC, I think I could have a crack at.is still a good choice for RAD.
10 LET ME$="OUT OF HERE"
I generally agree with that. Programs aren't that small, however. The runtime (which is embedded in a compiled program) was 1MB+ when I used RB 2.5. Fine for Mac IIs and Quadras, but not for a Plus or SE. I briefly investigated writing an extension that would enable contextual menus in System 7, but I think that my first compile was 1.5MB in size.REALbasic v1.1.1 is still a good choice for RAD. Compiles nice, small 68K programs, and has some powerful features like easy-to-use TCP sockets.
So use FutureBASIC. It makes nice, tiny executables. Like I say, I even wrote an extension with FB2 once. And it's freeware!I generally agree with that. Programs aren't that small, however. The runtime (which is embedded in a compiled program) was 1MB+ when I used RB 2.5. Fine for Mac IIs and Quadras, but not for a Plus or SE. I briefly investigated writing an extension that would enable contextual menus in System 7, but I think that my first compile was 1.5MB in size.REALbasic v1.1.1 is still a good choice for RAD. Compiles nice, small 68K programs, and has some powerful features like easy-to-use TCP sockets.
Nice!NEWS! FB II is Available for older Macs -- April 19, 2008
If you have an older (68K) Mac, you can still run FutureBASIC. Click here to download.
HyperNext looks interesting as a modern version: and it's freeware, which SuperCard is not.the greatest programming environment of all on the 68K Mac--HyperCard!!!
FB2 looks quite capable, but I haven't managed to get it to run properly on miniVMac yet.So use FutureBASIC. It makes nice, tiny executables. Like I say, I even wrote an extension with FB2 once. And it's freeware!