PureBasic vs B4J

Everything else that doesn't fall into one of the other PB categories.
craig7
User
User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:49 pm

PureBasic vs B4J

Post by craig7 »

What advantages does PureBasic over B4J (the desktop development platform of B4X)? It also uses a basic style syntax but compiles to Java. I believe they embed the JRE with the exe so that the jar file can run without the end user needing to install? However, I wonder if this wouldn't mean large slow files?

I also wonder why they claim it as RAD? Is PureBasic also not RAD because you are using Basic... or is it a slow to code 'lower level' form of basic?
swan
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 9:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by swan »

Hi, this may or may not answer some of your question. I've used B4A and it's quite good for it's purpose mainly because java is native to android. But to use java on windoze desktop produces a massive overhead, although it still works I guess.
PB's basic is quite different to B4X, it took me a little while to get into the swing.
I did like the editor on B4A, particularly the real time compile to device.
If I had to pick between B4J & PB, PB in a heart beat.
User avatar
skywalk
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3972
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by skywalk »

RAD means Rapid Application Development.
VB6 was considered RAD because its form editor and IDE produced live code and "edit and continue" if making changes on the fly.
I would put PB in the DRA, Develop Rapid Applications, bucket.
The PB form editor is not as fluid as VB6 but is also not necessary to achieve DRA.
The PB IDE is rapid enough and v6 will pushing the limits of the end application performance and increase the target processors.
Something VB6 never did.
The nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. ~ Andrew Tanenbaum
deeproot
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Llangadog, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by deeproot »

It's horses for courses!
swan wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:10 am Hi, this may or may not answer some of your question. I've used B4A and it's quite good for it's purpose mainly because java is native to android. But to use java on windoze desktop produces a massive overhead, although it still works I guess.
PB's basic is quite different to B4X, it took me a little while to get into the swing.
I did like the editor on B4A, particularly the real time compile to device.
If I had to pick between B4J & PB, PB in a heart beat.
Totally agree!

I've used B4A since its first Beta (and Basic4PPC before that). It's a very good product and although I've not used B4J myself, I'm sure it works fine and there is a place for it. However, for power and efficiency on Win/Mac/Linux it has to be PureBasic every time!

Definition of "RAD" can be a bit vague but I would agree with skywalk's comments. For PureBasic I don't personally use any visual designer, but generating even complex forms in code is relatively fast. Most important for me is that the resulting code is easy to maintain and change - I would say better than the equivalent using VB6, which I spent many years with.
User avatar
Mijikai
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:17 pm

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by Mijikai »

I fail to see where the vs. comes into play those are completely different products (basic syntax aside).
craig7
User
User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:49 pm

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by craig7 »

swan wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:10 am Hi, this may or may not answer some of your question. I've used B4A and it's quite good for it's purpose mainly because java is native to android. But to use java on windoze desktop produces a massive overhead, although it still works I guess.
PB's basic is quite different to B4X, it took me a little while to get into the swing.
I did like the editor on B4A, particularly the real time compile to device.
If I had to pick between B4J & PB, PB in a heart beat.
Thanks this is helpful. So B4J will produce slower running apps.
craig7
User
User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:49 pm

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by craig7 »

skywalk wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 3:13 am RAD means Rapid Application Development.
VB6 was considered RAD because its form editor and IDE produced live code and "edit and continue" if making changes on the fly.
I would put PB in the DRA, Develop Rapid Applications, bucket.
The PB form editor is not as fluid as VB6 but is also not necessary to achieve DRA.
The PB IDE is rapid enough and v6 will pushing the limits of the end application performance and increase the target processors.
Something VB6 never did.
Oh never heard of the term DRA.
craig7
User
User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:49 pm

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by craig7 »

deeproot wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 10:23 am It's horses for courses!
swan wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:10 am Hi, this may or may not answer some of your question. I've used B4A and it's quite good for it's purpose mainly because java is native to android. But to use java on windoze desktop produces a massive overhead, although it still works I guess.
PB's basic is quite different to B4X, it took me a little while to get into the swing.
I did like the editor on B4A, particularly the real time compile to device.
If I had to pick between B4J & PB, PB in a heart beat.
Totally agree!

I've used B4A since its first Beta (and Basic4PPC before that). It's a very good product and although I've not used B4J myself, I'm sure it works fine and there is a place for it. However, for power and efficiency on Win/Mac/Linux it has to be PureBasic every time!

Definition of "RAD" can be a bit vague but I would agree with skywalk's comments. For PureBasic I don't personally use any visual designer, but generating even complex forms in code is relatively fast. Most important for me is that the resulting code is easy to maintain and change - I would say better than the equivalent using VB6, which I spent many years with.
Thanks for the insights. So PB produces faster software. In terms of build though, I suspect B4J's larger community has produced more extensive libraries, such as advanced maths - so it should make coding quicker.
Bitblazer
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:17 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by Bitblazer »

craig7 wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:11 pmThanks for the insights. So PB produces faster software. In terms of build though, I suspect B4J's larger community has produced more extensive libraries, such as advanced maths - so it should make coding quicker.
PureBasic can esily interface with many third party libraries, there are solutions for nearly every aspect. During the last 12 years of using the language, i have come across exactly one widely known and very useful library where the latest/current versions could not easily be used with purebasic natively and that was the Html Agility Pack. So that specific project was 98% quickly and easily developed in purebasic and uses a tiny C# tool that extracts the needed data from websites for my purebasic application. Not really a big deal.

But with the upcoming version 6, it should be easily possible to integrate the Html Agility Pack into a native high performance (gcc optimized!) PureBasic app. I can't see any reason to prefer the whole B4X range over purebasic to develop desktop applications, unless you are being used to using B4X. But the purebasic IDE, compatibility and community are top and quite active. That's an important aspect!

Feel free to check my website for purebasic stuff and the amount of resources it links to.
webpage - discord chat links -> purebasic GPT4All
craig7
User
User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:49 pm

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by craig7 »

Bitblazer wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 1:13 pm
craig7 wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:11 pmThanks for the insights. So PB produces faster software. In terms of build though, I suspect B4J's larger community has produced more extensive libraries, such as advanced maths - so it should make coding quicker.
PureBasic can esily interface with many third party libraries, there are solutions for nearly every aspect. During the last 12 years of using the language, i have come across exactly one widely known and very useful library where the latest/current versions could not easily be used with purebasic natively and that was the Html Agility Pack. So that specific project was 98% quickly and easily developed in purebasic and uses a tiny C# tool that extracts the needed data from websites for my purebasic application. Not really a big deal.

But with the upcoming version 6, it should be easily possible to integrate the Html Agility Pack into a native high performance (gcc optimized!) PureBasic app. I can't see any reason to prefer the whole B4X range over purebasic to develop desktop applications, unless you are being used to using B4X. But the purebasic IDE, compatibility and community are top and quite active. That's an important aspect!

Feel free to check my website for purebasic stuff and the amount of resources it links to.
Ok thanks. For some reason I didn't see your site in my previous searches. The main one I was aware of was Purearea, which I think has been abandoned (2007 ?).
So if I understand you correctly, you are referring to third party libraries written, possibly, in another language - e.g. C# - not PB.
In terms of community, I had a brief look and initially thought they were busier, but I could be wrong - they don't show how many are live at any one point in time. That would also be important in terms of bug fixes, especially since B4X is open source. I have noticed comments about bug fixes in relation to PB being slow and was wondering.
User avatar
Kiffi
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1353
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: Amphibios 9

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by Kiffi »

<OT>
@craig7: Please don't always quote the entire post you are replying to.
</OT>
Hygge
Bitblazer
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:17 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by Bitblazer »

craig7 wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 2:51 pmSo if I understand you correctly, you are referring to third party libraries written, possibly, in another language - e.g. C# - not PB.
Yes. The biggest problem there for Purebasic up to V5, is interfacing with object oriented .NET libraries (in my opinion). I was going to write examples how to do that in Purebasic, but then the announcement of purebasic version 6 was released (currently in beta #5).

PureBasic 6 will likely change the external interfacing to other libraries a lot to the better! So i didnt see a point to write how it can be done for the current V 5 - its obviously possible too!
craig7 wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 2:51 pmIn terms of community, I had a brief look and initially thought they were busier, but I could be wrong - they don't show how many are live at any one point in time. That would also be important in terms of bug fixes, especially since B4X is open source. I have noticed comments about bug fixes in relation to PB being slow and was wondering.
Open source isnt really the best solution for everything and has its own drawbacks :(

May i suggest that you do the same thread on the B4J forum and compare activity and replies and try each software and then make up your own mind :)

A useful demo version of PureBasic can be downloaded here

In the end - the best software for a job is the one that YOU can get stuff done with. Not anybody else ;)

ps: look at the top menu entry links->purebasic->resources on my website (you can ignore the security warning for now, i didnt bother to make my website https compatible yet).
webpage - discord chat links -> purebasic GPT4All
craig7
User
User
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:49 pm

Re: PureBasic vs B4J

Post by craig7 »

Bitblazer wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 3:34 pm
In the end - the best software for a job is the one that YOU can get stuff done with. Not anybody else ;)

ps: look at the top menu entry links->purebasic->resources on my website (you can ignore the security warning for now, i didnt bother to make my website https compatible yet).
Yes I think you are right, I will need to try both and make a detailed comparison. Nothing like actual practice.
Post Reply