Quoted from "yogiyang"

It would be great if we could target mobile devices from Jabaco.

If you want to create programs for Android, then you could use "Basic 4 Android":
[ http://www.basic4ppc.com ]

Greatings
theuserbl

He actually said that development would continue, Yogi? Then maybe it's in the works, and has just been temporarily delayed.


How long ago was that email exchange? His situation might have changed, if it was long ago. But perhaps he does intend to continue.

Yes, this repeats info already here but there have been some developments:

As far as I know the only popular mobile platform supporting Java in any form is Android, and that uses a different runtime (Dalvik, not a JVM), libraries, and its own native widget/UI framework. So Jabaco is very unlikely to be useful for mobile device programming.

An alternative might be Basic4Android. There is also a new companion product B4J, highly compatible with Basic4Android at the source code syntax level. This creates generic JVM bytecode using JavaFX for GUIs.

B4J is free and might make a decent alternative to Jabaco if you need one. From there one might consider whether to invest in the (not free) Basic4Android product for Dalvik (Android) programming.

Quoted from "dilettante"

Yes, this repeats info already here but there have been some developments:

As far as I know the only popular mobile platform supporting Java in any form is Android, and that uses a different runtime (Dalvik, not a JVM), libraries, and its own native widget/UI framework. So Jabaco is very unlikely to be useful for mobile device programming.

An alternative might be Basic4Android. There is also a new companion product B4J, highly compatible with Basic4Android at the source code syntax level. This creates generic JVM bytecode using JavaFX for GUIs.

B4J is free and might make a decent alternative to Jabaco if you need one. From there one might consider whether to invest in the (not free) Basic4Android product for Dalvik (Android) programming.

B4J is a nice effort, and will probably be extremely popular as time goes on. But unfortunately, the ide was written in .net, and therefore isn't able to 'sense' Java class and methods from ordinary jars.

In order for an external jar to be accessible to B4J (at this time, December 31st, 2013), you need to have the source code and prepare it in different ways.

So, Jabaco still has an advantage, in this regard. Even if Manuel does NOT do any further development, I wish he would provide a donation link, so I can at least thank him for his previous efforts.

Quoted

In order for an external jar to be accessible to B4J (at this time,
December 31st, 2013), you need to have the source code and prepare it in
different ways.

This is not exactly correct. The Java source code is not required. You do need to create a Java wrapper to wrap the jar file. In most cases it is quite simple. There is a tool named SLC (simple library compiler) that helps with the building step.

Quoted from "Erel"

Quoted

In order for an external jar to be accessible to B4J (at this time,
December 31st, 2013), you need to have the source code and prepare it in
different ways.

This is not exactly correct. The Java source code is not required. You do need to create a Java wrapper to wrap the jar file. In most cases it is quite simple. There is a tool named SLC (simple library compiler) that helps with the building step.

If it doesn't require the source code, then how come 1) Some of the instructions (trying to locate them) recommend that you inject annotations like @ShortName(module)? Are they referring to the wrapper code?

Either way, I'm sorry to say this Erel, but Jabaco is easier to use, and more natural, at least for me. Basic4Android & B4J obviously has a strong fan base, and I may be one of those fans eventually.

B4J is a noble effort, has a clearer present & future licensing statement than Jabaco, and a good compatibility with the flagship Android version. And I WILL explorer it further, when the next version comes out. But the idea of having to write wrappers for a product whose output are jars, seems cumbersome. With Jabaco, I can use a Java or Groovy jar, right off the bat.

B4J does have some of the same benefits as Jabaco, of course. You can run the ide on a Netbook, with reasonable performance, if you're traveling or you need to sit while your wife is yakking at a friend's house. Loading Eclipse or Intellij on a Netbook, is a form of torture.

One thing I'm curious about. Not a disagreement, really just a curiosity - why write it in .net?

Trying not to turn this into a flame. Those are my honest impressions.

I'm not really familiar with Jabaco and I definitely don't intend to compare B4J to Jabaco on Jabaco forum. It looks like a great product.

I've just corrected the facts.

Quoted

If it doesn't require the source code, then how come 1) Some of the
instructions (trying to locate them) recommend that you inject
annotations like @ShortName(module)? Are they referring to the wrapper
code?

Yes, they are referring the wrapper code.

98% of B4J (and B4A) developers will never write any library. They do not know Java and they don't need to know. Over time there will be more and more libraries available. In B4A there are probably several hundreds of libraries available.

When a library is wrapped we do our best to make the API more coherent with B4J concepts. Its not just about exposing the native API.

Quoted from "Erel"

I'm not really familiar with Jabaco and I definitely don't intend to compare B4J to Jabaco on Jabaco forum. It looks like a great product.

I've just corrected the facts.

Quoted

If it doesn't require the source code, then how come 1) Some of the
instructions (trying to locate them) recommend that you inject
annotations like @ShortName(module)? Are they referring to the wrapper
code?

Yes, they are referring the wrapper code.

98% of B4J (and B4A) developers will never write any library. They do not know Java and they don't need to know. Over time there will be more and more libraries available. In B4A there are probably several hundreds of libraries available.

When a library is wrapped we do our best to make the API more coherent with B4J concepts. Its not just about exposing the native API.

Ok, thanks Erel. Will stay tuned on B4A & B4J progress. Looks like you just posted a new version, will take a look.

Hi all,
I think that every programs are useful for developers,Please don't compare.

It is the truth, that so far I find Jabaco more useful than B4J. And it seems absolutely insane, that B4J doesn't have direct access to java libraries, that you have to write wrappers.

Sorry, but that's my opinion. Someone else might see it differently.

I should point out, though, that B4J's debugger, at least currently, is better than Jabaco's.

Also, I do have an ongoing project in B4J, simply because it started there, and there's no point redoing it, with another tool.

basic4android is great, but also not multiplatttform. But basic4android as a sub-product called B4J which is free and for writing Java Apps on 'Computers'.

Have a look at NSBasic.com There you can code in VB Syntax and the output is html5/javascript webapps. They run on every mobile device and you have access to acclerater, gps, camera, etc.

If you want to sell your app on iOS AppStore or GooglePlay you can wrap it to an native app using PhoneGap. NSBasic is not free, but you can test it and write at least webapps for free.

In conclusion - if you don't want to move away from VB Syntax (what you maybe should...)

VB6 only for Win Machines
Jabaco only for 'Computers'
NSBasic for all devices

BUT, I don't like NSBasic IDE and especcially the debugger! Jabaco is by far better. So I really hope Manuel is improving the IDE and I dream that in the future there is not only a Java Framework in jabaco, but also an Android Framework (which is slightly different to 'real' java Framework). I do not put my hope in that. I would be willing to help Improve the Jabaco Framework, but not in any Android Framework. But maybe YOU?

Quoted from "rucksacktraeger"

basic4android is great, but also not multiplatttform. But basic4android as a sub-product called B4J which is free and for writing Java Apps on 'Computers'.

Have a look at NSBasic.com There you can code in VB Syntax and the output is html5/javascript webapps. They run on every mobile device and you have access to acclerater, gps, camera, etc.

If you want to sell your app on iOS AppStore or GooglePlay you can wrap it to an native app using PhoneGap. NSBasic is not free, but you can test it and write at least webapps for free.

In conclusion - if you don't want to move away from VB Syntax (what you maybe should...)

VB6 only for Win Machines
Jabaco only for 'Computers'
NSBasic for all devices

BUT, I don't like NSBasic IDE and especcially the debugger! Jabaco is by far better. So I really hope Manuel is improving the IDE and I dream that in the future there is not only a Java Framework in jabaco, but also an Android Framework (which is slightly different to 'real' java Framework). I do not put my hope in that. I would be willing to help Improve the Jabaco Framework, but not in any Android Framework. But maybe YOU?

It's probably a good idea to wait a while, before making any major changes. The Framework is being updated from time to time, as you know.

We don't know yet, what types of changes will be made to the IDE. Let's wait and see, before planning anything. I can use Jabaco as is, for the time being.

And B4J is making improvements, and is usable; although I find several inconveniences in the current version. No reason that we can't use both, as they both evolve.