Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
I just tried to build a EVO related tool from a RealBasic project and the end product won't run (type 3 error).
The project runs fine from inside RealBasic.
Am I doing something dumb that makes it not work? Any advice is welcome.
-STH
------------------
Right..Necro to the rescue
Type 3 errors are: (taken from (url="http://"http://www.appleerrors.com")AppleErrorCodes(/url)) Illegal Instruction - The computer has a specific vocabulary of machine language instructions it can understand. If a computer tries to execute an instruction that isn't in its vocabulary, you see this error code. It's less likely than error 02, but still very common.
Type -3 errors are: (also taken from (url="http://"http://www.appleerrors.com")AppleErrorCodes(/url))corErr - core routine number out of range
Hope that clears things up.
------------------ Ladies and Gentlemen, as you know we have something special for you at Birdland this evening. A recording for Blue Note Records... (url="http://"http://pub58.ezboard.com/bthehotdogstand")The HotDog Stand(/url) - The Movie Goers board.
Quote
Originally posted by the Necromicon: **Right..Necro to the rescue....Hope that clears things up. **
Wow. Nice, fast reply. I figured out what the problem was prior to seeing your reply, though. I was being dumb.
Thanks, though.
Originally posted by seant: **Wow. Nice, fast reply. I figured out what the problem was prior to seeing your reply, though. I was being dumb.:)
**
Was the problem anything to do with my reply?
Originally posted by the Necromicon: **Was the problem anything to do with my reply? **
How would your reply cause a problem?
Seriously, I had defined a window as a splash screen, but the app was unhappy with the window type. It was just a matter of changing the type of window. So, yeah, I guess your answer was correct. I'm afraid I'm no knowledgeable enough to say for sure.
I'm wondering, where can I download the full version of RealBasic, and do the commands I learned in computer programming class (used VisualBasic 6.0 in that class on Windows machines . . . UGHHHHHHHH) work in RealBasic? I'm a fairly decent programmer as well as EVO Plug developer and I think that I might be able to make some EVO Development Tools/Editors for EVO and thereby help my fellow developers. Any advice is gladly appreciated.
Cheers, ~Jedibrass
------------------ -author of "Dragerron" -OotS member -EVO plug developer, & amateur 3D graphics artist. -Star Wars fan(atic)
(quote)Originally posted by JediBrass: **I'm wondering, where can I download the full version of RealBasic, and do the commands I learned in computer programming class (used VisualBasic 6.0 in that class on Windows machines . . . UGHHHHHHHH) work in RealBasic? I'm a fairly decent programmer as well as EVO Plug developer and I think that I might be able to make some EVO Development Tools/Editors for EVO and thereby help my fellow developers. Any advice is gladly appreciated. ). As for VB to RB conversions, there are differences, but these are laid out in the documentation supplied with RB.
(quote)Originally posted by seant: Seriously, I had defined a window as a splash screen, but the app was unhappy with the window type. It was just a matter of changing the type of window. So, yeah, I guess your answer was correct. I'm afraid I'm no knowledgeable enough to say for sure.** (/quote)
Ah..I see.
Hmm. Does anyone know anything about programming EVO apps in Python ( (url="http://"http://www.python.org")http://www.python.org(/url) )? I know Python and consider it a superior language to Basic so I don't really want to use Basic in any apps (and for anyone who speaks up about it being an interpreted language, it can be made into a standalone application :p). Does anyone have experience or a place to start with this?
------------------ Diddly, "Well, we could grind our enemies into powder, but gosh, we did that yesterday."
(This message has been edited by diddlysquat (edited 03-22-2001).)
(quote)Originally posted by diddlysquat: **Hmm. Does anyone know anything about programming EVO apps in Python (http://www.python.org )? I know Python and consider it a superior language to Basic so I don't really want to use Basic in any apps (and for anyone who speaks up about it being an interpreted language, it can be made into a standalone application
------------------ -author of "Dragerron" -OotS member -EVO plug developer, & amateur 3D graphics artist. -Star Wars fan(atic) **
I was going through the RealBasic site (and gagging at the price of the software even WITH the academic discount which I'm eligable for b/c I'm a High School student) and saw that RealBasic compiles and while I was on the Python site I saw that Python interprets. What I want to know is: how is interpreting different from compiling, what are the pro's & con's of each, and is one over all better than the other. This is compiling versus interpreting, not RealBasic versus Python. I'm seriously looking into both (already downloaded Python 2.0 and the Python source for 2.0).
Originally posted by JediBrass: **how is interpreting different from compiling, what are the pro's & con's of each, and is one over all better than the other. **
Interpreting: like a political leader making a speach, and having an 'interpreter' translate it into another language while the leader is still talking. This is pretty slow/jerky because the code has to be interpreted while it's running, but it's easy to change or make stuff since you can write the app (or even have the app modify itself) and run it right away, without much of a delay. The other thing is that you need to also run the actual interpreter program, which has it's own associated pros and cons for both distributing and running your app.
Compiling: like having a writer in 1800's france write something, and then a french student in 2000's Canada translate it back into a seperate document. The actual translation of the code takes less time, since it's done all at once without having to run it, but it takes a while before you can do anything with it and so you have to wait between writing code and trying it out.
As for which is better, it depends on what you are doing. The actual size of a compiled app will probably be bigger than a script for an interpreter, but the interpreter is probably larger still. The compiled program will probably run faster, but the time it takes to run might be very small anyways, so the difference doesn't matter. The compiled program will almost certainly have more developer support as well (and not just from the compilor vendor), but you might not need, say, OpenGL or access to low-level OS functions (these even may be included somehow into an interpreter). In the end, you'd probably be best off with a compilor, but if your app would bennefit from an interpreter, you might as well use it.
------------------ -- Nikolaus Wegner
Originally posted by nwegner: **Interpreting: like a political leader making a speach, and having an 'interpreter' translate it into another language while the leader is still talking. This is pretty slow/jerky because the code has to be interpreted while it's running, but it's easy to change or make stuff since you can write the app (or even have the app modify itself) and run it right away, without much of a delay. The other thing is that you need to also run the actual interpreter program, which has it's own associated pros and cons for both distributing and running your app.
As for which is better, it depends on what you are doing. The actual size of a compiled app will probably be bigger than a script for an interpreter, but the interpreter is probably larger still. The compiled program will probably run faster, but the time it takes to run might be very small anyways, so the difference doesn't matter. The compiled program will almost certainly have more developer support as well (and not just from the compilor vendor), but you might not need, say, OpenGL or access to low-level OS functions (these even may be included somehow into an interpreter). In the end, you'd probably be best off with a compilor, but if your app would bennefit from an interpreter, you might as well use it. **
Actually Python interpreted is still faster than Basic compiled :p. But if you're worried about speed MacPython includes a make Applet file that compiles the program that you've written.
(quote)Originally posted by JediBrass: **Well, I just downloaded the Mac Version and haven't yet tried it yet. But I'm willing to learn how do program in Python. I think it'll take lots of effort on my part b/c the only true programming experience I have is programming in Vb which is only for Windows (ACHHHHH, gotta get that rotten taste from saying the "W" word, both in the name of our currently President in-power (he WAS NOT elected, Gore was) and in the name of that chop-shop Mac OS fake called Windows . . . cough, cough). And I don't really know any other language besides Visual Basic. But like I said, I'm willing to learn.:) or you want to see what it would look like to the user instead of using the IDE use BBedit lite, or something like that. The IDE messes some things up.
Hope this helps. Just browse around Python.org awhile, you'll find help. And, Python beats the pants off Basic any day of the week in every field. Speed, Python makes programs smaller than Basic does. Size, Python makes smaller compiled programs than Basic does. Price, Python's free!. Learnability, it is much easier with its clean, clear syntax than Basic. And, well. Is BASIC named after Monty Python? My point.
------------------ Diddly, "Well, we could grind our enemies into powder, but gosh, we did that yesterday." **
Originally posted by diddlysquat: Actually Python interpreted is still faster than Basic compiled.
REAL basic is pretty slow (and makes big apps) so I would say that's no surprise, Future basic might not be so slow, but I doubt Python's faster than C or C++ with Mr C or CodeWarrior (call me a newbie with big goals, but that's what I use (rather, can't use, but that's besides the point)).
(B)But if you're worried about speed MacPython includes a make Applet file that compiles the program that you've written.(B)
If it's like AppleScript's applet form (which is better than Java's) it's still too slow.
Originally posted by nwegner: **REAL basic is pretty slow (and makes big apps) so I would say that's no surprise, Future basic might not be so slow, but I doubt Python's faster than C or C++ with Mr C or CodeWarrior (call me a newbie with big goals, but that's what I use (rather, can't use, but that's besides the point)).
That's true, but it is faster than any form of BASIC and though it is slower than C but nothing except Assembler is faster. And, unlike C it is easy to learn.
**If it's like AppleScript's applet form (which is better than Java's) it's still too slow.
It isn't anything like Applescripts applet. It actually comiles into a fast app.