ARBP Chat Transcript Available

After some technical difficulties with the chat room last night the chat with Geoff Perlman, President and CEO of REAL Software, went rather well I think.  At one time we had 20 people in the chat room and even though we didn’t have moderation on, everyone was polite and there were very few interruptions.

Interviews like this are always interesting.  I don’t think we learned anything particularly new, but it was nice to get some hints about what’s on their minds:

We learned that the upcoming reporting component in REALbasic will most likely not have an end user editing component.  RS isn’t opposed to someone writing one, though.

64 bit compatibility is on their list and all of the Cocoa work is 64 bit ready.  Framework issues are the biggest issue with 64 bit.

Look for some new Studio Edition only features for release 5.  Will be part of the Release 4 beta testing.

Many people are asking about being able to make iPhone applications using REALbasic.  Cocoa support is a prerequisite and then ARM processor compiling.  Geoff also said there’s not as many requests for Palm, Android, or Windows Mobile.  (No one asked if Apple had given permission to pursue this cause or not!)

For the full transcript, please go to:

What are your thoughts of the chat with Geoff?

3 thoughts on “ARBP Chat Transcript Available

  1. There weren’t really many surprises there for me (go figure). But I was a bit confused at Geoff’s take on .NET and Win32 APIs. Microsoft has never said they’re going to deprecate the Win32 APIs. In fact, I know from personal experience that they’re hiring people to write new Win32 APIs just earlier this year. So I’m not certain what research Geoff has done on that front, but as a Windows programmer I was disappointed with the statement that .NET will happen when Win32 goes away. That basically read as “never” to me.

  2. Support for .net development using the Delphi IDE wasn’t a great success and has been dropped by Codegear/Embarcadero. I think at least some of the problems were caused by the difficulty of keeping up with the pace of change in .net meaning that, short of applying enormous resources to the task, the Delphi offering would always lag far behind. Providing a language to operate inside visual studio seems a more logical route which is what Delphi prism is. But what would be the point of REAL doing that when VB is already there?

  3. @jjb
    Your logic has a flaw though — the point of RB supporting .NET is the same point as RB supporting declares. Sure, I could write a plugin if I wanted to go write a bunch of C++ code. But I don’t want to… I want to access part of the OS frameworks from my RB code. .NET is no different.

    As for keeping up with the pace, I don’t see that as being a logical thing. I don’t expect a re-implementation the .NET framework as native RB code. I expect to be able to interoperate with existing .NET frameworks, which can be done with native COM support.

Comments are closed.