REALStudio / 运行时革命替代方案
我只是想问一下 REALStudio 或 Runtime Revolution 是否还有其他替代方案？
我不是在寻找 .NET 框架或插件之类的东西。我希望它像前面提到的 IDE 一样完全独立。
它还应该是跨平台的。
注意： 请不要提及Java。我已经知道了。
需要明确的是，我正在寻找一个编程环境，可以让我为 Windows、Mac OS X 和 Linux 创建桌面应用程序...
I'd just like to ask if there are other alternatives for REALStudio or Runtime Revolution?
I'm not looking for something like a .NET framework or a plugin. I want it to be fully self-contained like the aforementioned IDEs.
It should also be cross-platform.
NOTE:
Please don't mention Java. I already know of it.
Just to be clear, I'm looking for a programming environment that would let me create a desktop application for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux...
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
我还是觉得回答这个问题是在摸黑。目前还不清楚您是在寻找编程语言和 GUI 工具包，还是只是想要一个跨平台的 IDE。还不清楚您为什么放弃 REAL Studio，因为它似乎满足您的要求。
不管怎样，这里确实有很多选择，特别是如果您不需要使用 REALbasic 语言的选择。我只能说说我熟悉的、有使用经验的。其他人肯定可以告诉您更多有关 Perl、Python、Ruby 等动态语言的信息。
首先，我不确定您为什么认为 .NET Framework 不是“完全独立的”。是的，它需要运行时，就像 Java 一样。但这两种托管语言因需要运行时而受到了相当不好的批评。人们似乎忘记了用 C 和 C++ 编译的程序通常也需要运行时（至少在 Windows 上是这样）。
我会再看一下.NET。它是一个极其易于使用、快速的开发环境，很像 REALbasic 的风格。 VB.NET 保留了很多语法，同时为您带来（在我看来）更强大的功能。由于几乎所有桌面应用程序都应该与安装程序（安装程序）一起分发，因此运行时的要求实际上不是问题。您的安装程序应该与您的应用程序同时安装必要的依赖项——用户永远不会更明智。
当然，生成一个桌面应用程序，其用户界面在所有三个目标平台上都是真正的本机，这也是很困难的。 Windows、Mac OS X 和 Linux 都有截然不同的平台约定，尽管您可以找到可以生成在所有这些平台上运行的可执行文件的环境，但它们都不会生成实际上看起来像本机的界面应用。我对此非常挑剔，你会发现 Mac 用户也是如此。 Windows 和 Linux 用户的接受度要高得多，但遵循标准平台约定是使您的应用程序易于使用和易于理解的关键。符合用户期望的行为并利用本机小部件有很多优点，但开发人员（通常容易重新发明轮子）最近似乎忘记了。
绝对最好的事情（在我看来）是用可移植语言（如 C++）编写代码，并使用为每个平台提供的工具创建用户界面（对于 Windows，您可以使用 Windows对于 Mac OS X，您将使用 Cocoa 和 Apple 的 Xcode/Interface Builder。对于 Linux，您将执行 Linux 人员所做的任何操作。）在每个平台上重新编译您的应用程序，您将获得两全其美的效果。
一个好的折衷方案是使用 C++ 的 GUI 工具包，例如 Qt 或 wxWidgets 承诺生成跨平台应用程序。 是的，应用程序本身确实是跨平台的，但是他们并不总是有真正的本机界面。我知道 Qt 最近有所进步，但仍然达不到我的标准。您和您的用户可能不会那么挑剔。请注意其中的“您的用户”部分。 Mac Office 团队发现 Mac OS X 用户不会接受在 Windows 中实现的功能区。 Mac Office 11 终于将功能区引入了 Mac，但它看起来完全不同，已经完全重新实现，看起来像原生 Mac OS X 小部件。相比之下，苹果的 iTunes 在 Windows 上就显得很棘手。长期以来，Mac 上创新、易于使用的界面标准被许多 PC 用户视为令人厌恶。但话又说回来，原生 GUI 有点像我的肥皂盒，所以如果你关心的话，我建议仔细阅读我对其他类似问题的回答：
I still feel like I'm shooting in the dark by answering this question. It's unclear if you're looking for a programming language and GUI toolkit, or if you just want an IDE that is cross-platform. It's also unclear why you are abandoning REAL Studio, since it seems to meet your requirements.
Anyway, there are really a lot of options here, especially if you don't need one that uses the REALbasic language. I can only talk about the ones I am familiar with and have experience in using. Others can surely tell you more about dynamic languages like Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. etc.
First off, I'm not sure why you think that the .NET Framework is not "fully self-contained". Yes, it requires a runtime, much like Java does. But those two managed languages have gotten quite a bad rap for requiring a runtime. It seems people have forgotten that programs compiled in C and C++ can often require a runtime as well (at least they do on Windows).
I would take a second look at .NET. It is an extremely easy-to-use, rapid development environment, much in the style of REALbasic. VB.NET retains a lot of the syntax, while bringing you (in my opinion) even more powerful features. Since almost all desktop applications should be distributed with an installer (setup program), the requirement of a runtime is really a non-issue. Your installer should install the necessary dependencies at the same time as your application—the user will never be the wiser.
Of course, producing a desktop application with a user interface that is truly native across all three of your target platforms is going to be difficult at best. Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux all have vastly different platform conventions, and even though you can find environments that will let you generate an executable that runs on all those platforms, none of them are going to produce interfaces that actually look like a native application. I'm extremely picky about this, and you'll find that Mac users are, too. Windows and Linux users are much more accepting, but following standard platform conventions is the key to making your app easy to use and easy to understand. Conforming to the behavior the user expects and taking advantage of native widgets has a lot of advantage that developers (often prone to reinvent the wheel) seem to be forgetting recently.
The absolute best thing to do (in my opinion) is to write your code in a portable language like C++, and create the user interface using tools provided for each platform (For Windows, you might use the Windows API, or WinForms or WPF provided by the .NET Framework. For Mac OS X, you'll use Cocoa and Apple's Xcode/Interface Builder. For Linux, you'll do whatever it is Linux people do.) Then, you just have to recompile your application on each platform, and you get the best of both worlds.
A good compromise would be to use a GUI toolkit for C++ like Qt or wxWidgets that promises to generate cross-platform applications. Yes, the apps themselves are truly cross-platform, but they don't always have truly native interfaces. I understand that Qt has gotten better recently, but it's still not up to my standards. You and your users might be less picky. Note the "your users" part there. The Mac Office team discovered that Mac OS X users just wouldn't accept the ribbon as it was implemented in Windows. Mac Office 11 finally brings the ribbon to the Mac, but it looks completely different, having been entirely reimplemented to look like a native Mac OS X widget. By contrast, Apple's iTunes sticks out like a sore thumb on Windows. What's long been the standard for an innovative, easy-to-use interface on the Mac is regarded by many PC users as an abomination. But then again, native GUI is sort of my soapbox, so if you care, I recommend perusing my answers to other, similar questions:
如果您的目标是拥有一个带有易于使用的 GUI 构建器的独立 IDE，可以生成独立的跨平台可执行文件，那么据我所知，选项非常有限。
如果您喜欢 BASIC（类似于 RealBasic 或 RunRev），那么您可能需要查看 www.PureBasic.com 。恕我直言，文档和新材料很少。它有自己的 GUI 构建器，但为了多花点钱，您可能需要将其与 PureVision 配对。
对于使用 C++、wxPython、wxLua 或 wxRuby 进行 wxWidgets 编程的跨平台开发，您可能需要考虑 DialogBlocks。
If you goal is to have a self contained IDE with an easy to use GUI builder, that can produce standalone cross platform executables, then to the best of my knowledge, the options are pretty limited.
If you like BASIC (similar to RealBasic or RunRev), then you may want to look at www.PureBasic.com . Documentation and new material is sparse, IMHO. It has it’s own GUI builder, but for a bit more cash, you may want to pair it with PureVision.
For cross platform development using wxWidgets programming in C++, wxPython, wxLua or wxRuby, you may want to consider DialogBlocks.
当然，这里给出的答案很糟糕，但你问的问题很难，而且可能没有答案。我问自己同样的问题，因为 REALStudio 的工作效果并不如我所愿。 Java 很差、很困难而且很丑陋。 .NET 是最受欢迎的，但不是跨平台的。
认为外观是一个主要问题。如果 GUI 看起来不是原生的，那么您没有理由不能设计出更优秀的东西（例如，看看 MojoWorld）。我暂时建议 REBOL。尽管它看起来是一个解释器，但可以购买编译器。由于该软件是免费的，如果您的程序运行得相当好，您可能会购买编译器。不确定它是否有界面生成器，因为按钮是由代码生成的。免费版本的性能稍差，但近年来一直在改进。
无法从线程更新界面（例如 Cocoa，我猜 NextStep 现在真的很旧）似乎破坏了练习的整个目标。拥有不运行的计时器（REALStudio）似乎也是没有希望的，因为它们应该更新界面。然后就是面向对象，这是贫穷程序员无法理解代码的借口。除非您将代码放入计时器中，假装它是一个模块（对于 REALStudio 来说是的），否则无法“转到”按钮。我能理解你的问题。试着认识到编程是困难的，只有当你看到像苹果这样的专家产生的最终结果时，它才看起来很容易。
所以Java证明了跨平台行不通。尝试一下 REBOL。
The answers given here are terrible of course, but the question you are asking is a difficult one and there may not be an answer. I'm asking myself the same question as REALStudio doesn't work as well as I would like. Java is poor, difficult and ugly. .NET is the favourite but not cross platform.
Consider that appearance is a major problem. If the GUI doesn't look native, there's no reason why you can't design something superior (look at MojoWorld for example). I would tentatively suggest REBOL. Although it appears to be an interpreter a compiler could be purchased. As the software is free, if your program works reasonably well you might then buy the compiler. Not sure if it has an interface builder as the buttons are generated by code. The free version is moderately poor but has been improving in recent years.
Not being able to update the interface from a thread (Cocoa for example, I guess NextStep is really old now) seems to defeat the whole object of the exercise. Having Timers that don't run (REALStudio) also seems hopeless given that those are supposed to update the interface instead. Then you have Object-Orientation, an excuse for poor programmers unable to understand code. Not being able to 'GOTO' a button unless you put the code into a Timer pretending that it's a module (yey for for REALStudio). I can understand your problems. Try to realise that programming is HARD and that it only looks easy when you see the end results produced by experts like Apple.
So Java is proof that cross platform doesn't work. Give REBOL a try.