Very Computer

Mobile;

The short answer is no, Visual Basic is oriented to MS products only.

You might be able to get VB to run under an emulator and maybe even the
applications it uses, but I don't use such tools so I really can't say so
for sure.    In may pay to check out one of the News groups that
specialize in such tools.

If you want a similar development capability, you may want to check out
Glade and Python.    This is a powerful combo with a high level language.

Dave

Is it possible being new to linux that you can program into linux using
visual basic, and if so can someone point me in the right direction.

Thanks in anticipation

Quote:mobile writes:
> Is it possible being new to linux that you can program into linux using
> visual basic,...

Fortunately, no.

Quote:> ...and if so can someone point me in the right direction.

Learn Perl and Perl-tk.
--
John Hasler                This posting is in the public domain.

Dancing Horse Hill         Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin         Do not send email adverti*ts to this address.

No, but for an example of "visual" programming under Linux see:

http://www.baypiggies.org/10mintig.html

(there's no pictures there unfortunately).

Dave Cook

While setting up a Linux box, I did an install of the latest version of
Wine (http://www.winehq.com). After a bit of tweaking it'll run VB5
quite happily and at least as stable as my very dodgy Win95 install
somewhere on my disk.

I took this screenshot at the time to show someone you could use Windows
apps under Linux. It shows MS-Word 7.0 editing some notes for a VB
course I teach (hangs head in shame), VB running a little proggy and
WinAmp (no not XMMS) playing a cool tune (no flames over my taste in
music please).

http://wareham.netfirms.com/wine_desk.jpg

If you /really/ _must_ use VB then try Wine.

Rich

--
  o () o   | Rich Wareham (rjw57)
  |\/\/|   | Robinson College,
  ~~~~~~   | Cambridge, CB3 9AN

In addition to the other alternatives people have mentioned you might try
Java.  There are "Visual" tools available that for my money are better than
VB ever was (and I've use VB a lot and liked it) and with reasonable care
you can write apps that run under Linux, Windows, the Mac, etc.  Several of
my Java apps run under Linux unchanged.

 You might be interested in XBasic, a 32-bit compiler with integrated
 development environment and interactive graphical GuiDesigner.
 XBasic is not a VisualBasic clone.  Compatible implementations
 of XBasic both Linux and Windows are downloadable freeware.
 You can learn more and/or download either implemenation at
 http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html .

last time I tried it, you could not make executatbles for Linux, so you
would always have to reveal your source.
Also it was extremely buggy, even on its own demo files.
And the manual is not up to it.
Jan

 Every release of Linux XBasic could make binary executables.
 But yes, XBasic is unstable on some newer Linux distributions.
 I know some problems are caused by different behavior in some
 new window-managers [or new releases], but probably not all.
 These problems are being investigated, and will probably be
 fixed soon.  The problems are certainly due to changes in Linux
 or libraries, because XBasic has been reported solid as a rock
 on some systems.

Quote:>> Last time I tried XBasic, you could not make executatbles for Linux,
>> so you would always have to reveal your source.  Also it was extremely
>> buggy, even on its own demo files.  And the manual is not up to it.

> Every release of Linux XBasic could make binary executables.
> But yes, XBasic is unstable on some newer Linux distributions.
> I know some problems are caused by different behavior in some
> new window-managers [or new releases], but probably not all.
> These problems are being investigated, and will probably be
> fixed soon.  The problems are certainly due to changes in Linux
> or libraries, because XBasic has been reported solid as a rock
> on some systems.

This is provable not true:
This is from the Xbasic docs I have, in file xb/html/advanced_2.htm :

<start quote (I removed some html tags)
standalone
standalone executables
Standalone programs or standalone executables run on computers without a prog
development environment aka PDE. Commercial software is generally distributed
standalone executables because:
Users do not have to buy a program development environment.
Programs take less disk space to store and less memory to run.
Users can run programs without seeing the source program.
system requirements
Standalone executables run on Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows95, and WindowsNT.
At this time, however, standalone programs can be created only on systems run
Windows95 or WindowsNT that includes:
link.exe or equivalent 32-bit linker
lib.exe or equivalent 32-bit library manager
rc.exe or equivalent 32-bit resource manager
nmake.exe or equivalent file maintenance utility
<end quote>

Now we are talking *Linux* here, no standalone executables!
Jan

 Thanks for pointing out that documentation error.

 I assume you understand the standard of proof is never
 what any person or document happens to say, but reality.
 And in reality, both Windows XBasic and Linux XBasic
 can make executables on normal Windows95/98/NT
 and Linux systems.  I know so by doing so.

 For example, to compile, build and execute the "ademo.x"
 sample program that comes with XBasic, do the following:
 In both cases, start an xterm or DOS console window and
 get into the XBasic working directory.

 #####  Linux  #####

    xb ademo.x
    make -f ademo.mak
    run/ademo

 #####  Windows  #####

    xb ademo.x
    nmake ademo.mak
    run\ademo

 The first line compiles source program "ademo.x" into
 assembly language program "ademo.s" and makefile
 "ademo.mak".  The second line builds executable file
 "ademo" or "ademo.exe" and puts it in the run subdirectory.
 The third line executes "ademo" or "ademo.exe".

 I am between Linux systems at the moment, so I may
 have made a minor mistake in the Linux lines.  The only
 two possible errors would be: "the -f is the wrong switch",
 and "the executable is not put into the run subdirectory,
 in which case simply entering "ademo" alone will run it.

 But thanks again for pointing out the documentation error.
 The error in the on-line version has been fixed, but the one
 inside the downloadable ZIP file has not.

Quote:>>> Last time I tried XBasic, you could not make executatbles for Linux,
>>> so you would always have to reveal your source.  Also it was extremely
>>> buggy, even on its own demo files.  And the manual is not up to it.

>> Every release of Linux XBasic could make binary executables.
<SNIP>

>This is provable not true:
>This is from the Xbasic docs I have, in file xb/html/advanced_2.htm :

Erm, I think Max wrote the docs, as well as XBasic itself, so, I think
he might be right, even if the docs aren't. :)
--
Jamie Walker                                http://www.sagaxis.co.uk/

Quote:> For example, to compile, build and execute the "ademo.x"
> sample program that comes with XBasic, do the following:
> In both cases, start an xterm or DOS console window and
> get into the XBasic working directory.

> #####  Linux  #####

>    xb ademo.x

I get a Console with the following message (cut and paste from it does not
work):
reEntery, SignalEntry, ##USERRUNNING, whomask, eip, exeptions$,

stuff about segmentation violation, press enter to save and terminate (what?)

Nothing further to try.

Note I try this on Slackware 3.4, not exactly 'a new system'.
The xbasic version seems to identify itself as 5.0000000000 (approx. LOL).

ademo.x exists, it is 74591 bytes.
If this thingy only worked it would be good, cross platform 2, but all
my tests fail!
Hope you get it working right.
Jan

I have the same problem on an up to date system.

--

Tannenrauchstrasse 35
8038 Zrich
Switzerland
+41 1 481 52 48

heheh.  Good response, but I would like to see a Cross platform, Object
Oriented BASIC for X.

Quote:>Fortunately, no.