COM Support
In a post last week I talked about the window of
opportunity of converting Visual Basic apps to
REALbasic. I’ve lost at least two projects because of
one simple, glaring omission in REALbasic. Lack of
full COM support.
Many of my Windows-only clients are coming from
Visual Basic 6 where they’ve invested tens of
thousands of dollars in specialized libraries and
controls. And because REALbasic doesn’t fully support
COM I have to tell them that the chances of their
library or control working in REALbasic is not good.
Forget about ActiveX controls - my luck in getting
them to work in RB is almost non-existent.
I know I’ve talked about this specific problem to anyone from Real Software that would listen at the past three Real Worlds. I can’t be the only one that has this issue. It is my opinion that this might be the single biggest deterrent to adopting REALbasic if you’re dealing solely with the Windows platform. It makes it seem that RB is half-baked and awaiting completion.
I can only guess at the reasons for not implementing it so far. One, they feel it does them no good in gaining new customers. Two, the effort to implement isn’t easy and resources are scarce. Three, no one’s asking for it.
I can’t see how having COM support hurts getting new customers. I maintain not having it loses customers but, whatever, I have no data to back it up.
I feel partially to blame about number three. In the December 2008 ARBP survey we listed 25 items that RS could work on and when I compiled the list, COM support didn’t make it to the list. My bad. I suggest that if you want COM support like I do, send them feedback. It seems that the more people scream about it the more attention it gets.
Resources ARE scarce at RS after laying off a developer in late 2008. I know they are working at getting Cocoa support in the first half of 2009 and so far it seems that the release is on-track. Is COM support waiting for Cocoa support to be finished?
Am I missing another reason? Do you think COM support is necessary and needed? Does it hurt RB by not fully supporting COM? Does anyone care?
I know I’ve talked about this specific problem to anyone from Real Software that would listen at the past three Real Worlds. I can’t be the only one that has this issue. It is my opinion that this might be the single biggest deterrent to adopting REALbasic if you’re dealing solely with the Windows platform. It makes it seem that RB is half-baked and awaiting completion.
I can only guess at the reasons for not implementing it so far. One, they feel it does them no good in gaining new customers. Two, the effort to implement isn’t easy and resources are scarce. Three, no one’s asking for it.
I can’t see how having COM support hurts getting new customers. I maintain not having it loses customers but, whatever, I have no data to back it up.
I feel partially to blame about number three. In the December 2008 ARBP survey we listed 25 items that RS could work on and when I compiled the list, COM support didn’t make it to the list. My bad. I suggest that if you want COM support like I do, send them feedback. It seems that the more people scream about it the more attention it gets.
Resources ARE scarce at RS after laying off a developer in late 2008. I know they are working at getting Cocoa support in the first half of 2009 and so far it seems that the release is on-track. Is COM support waiting for Cocoa support to be finished?
Am I missing another reason? Do you think COM support is necessary and needed? Does it hurt RB by not fully supporting COM? Does anyone care?