4 ms·

From the article: > Because Chrome OS runs Android apps, targeting Android is the way to build Chrome OS apps. The screenshot of "The Flutter ChromeOS lint ru

From the article: > Because Chrome OS runs Android apps, targeting Android is the way to build Chrome OS apps. The screenshot of "The Flutter ChromeOS lint rules in action" also appears to show an Android app manifest. Which, honestly, seems like kind of a strange design to me. The whole point of Flutter is to be a cross-platform app framework; why not just add a ChromeOS backend to it instead of running the Android version inside an Android emulation layer?

qhwudbebd 7y ago
Ah, that's a shame. I don't think I'd want to use something that pulled in messy Android as a dependency on Chrome OS.
krzat 7y ago
They may create dedicated shell in future. Proper desktop support in flutter is in very early stages currently.
petecox 7y ago
Dart did transpile to JS, so a WebAssembly backend for a 'web native' Flutter experience on Chrome OS is imaginable. But their app delivery platform is the Google Play infrastructure, which packages Android apps.
pjmlp 7y ago
Because this is Flutter/Dart team pushing their agenda, not the ChromeOS team embracing Flutter. Just like the Android team, usually answers with a political correct "It is nice to have options" when asked about Flutter and Android. They were pretty clear at this year's IO that Android's future is now Kotlin, with Java takind a 2nd place and C++ a 3rd one.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  It looks like you could be right. If this is true then publishing the following on the Google developer blog is downright deceptive: "Because Chrome OS runs Android apps, targeting Android is the way to build Chrome OS apps." Note that they're not saying it's a good way to build Chrome OS apps, they're saying it's "_the_ way to build Chrome OS apps".
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    I read it as an euphemism for workaround.
  - sebe 7y ago
    They do say "Flutter is a great way to build Chrome OS apps" and they say "Because Chrome OS runs Android apps, targeting Android is the way to build Chrome OS apps." The article is about chromeos and flutter, to make it clearer, they could have said, "targeting Android is the way to build, Flutter, Chrome OS apps." Targeting Android to create Flutter chromeos apps currently seems to be the go, this may change once flutter for the web and or the linux desktop support is fully baked.
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      Perhaps that is what they meant. Or maybe it isn't. Right now, Google seems like a rudderless ship floating in a sea of possibilities created by a bunch of very talented kids suffering from ADHD. I think someone at Google should grab the helm and actually do some steering.
      - sebe 7y ago
        I think the TL for Flutter is no spring chicken, he did an interesting post the other day, talks about what other languages they looked at when they decided to move on from Javascript. "Flutter was started by engineers from the Chrome team, and myself (who worked in the open source team as editor of the HTML standard)." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19856079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19856079
      - wsgeorge 7y ago
        I've always wondered how viable this was as a corporate strategy: why risk the entire company on one business when you could own several that may or may not succeed, each running (relatively) autonomously, etc... Your comment highlights one potential downside, ie. people not trusting the company because it looks confused on the outside.

qhwudbebd 7y ago

Ah, that's a shame. I don't think I'd want to use something that pulled in messy Android as a dependency on Chrome OS.

krzat 7y ago

They may create dedicated shell in future. Proper desktop support in flutter is in very early stages currently.

petecox 7y ago

Dart did transpile to JS, so a WebAssembly backend for a 'web native' Flutter experience on Chrome OS is imaginable. But their app delivery platform is the Google Play infrastructure, which packages Android apps.

pjmlp 7y ago

Because this is Flutter/Dart team pushing their agenda, not the ChromeOS team embracing Flutter. Just like the Android team, usually answers with a political correct "It is nice to have options" when asked about Flutter and Android. They were pretty clear at this year's IO that Android's future is now Kotlin, with Java takind a 2nd place and C++ a 3rd one.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
It looks like you could be right. If this is true then publishing the following on the Google developer blog is downright deceptive: "Because Chrome OS runs Android apps, targeting Android is the way to build Chrome OS apps." Note that they're not saying it's a good way to build Chrome OS apps, they're saying it's "_the_ way to build Chrome OS apps".
- pjmlp 7y ago
  I read it as an euphemism for workaround.
- sebe 7y ago
  They do say "Flutter is a great way to build Chrome OS apps" and they say "Because Chrome OS runs Android apps, targeting Android is the way to build Chrome OS apps." The article is about chromeos and flutter, to make it clearer, they could have said, "targeting Android is the way to build, Flutter, Chrome OS apps." Targeting Android to create Flutter chromeos apps currently seems to be the go, this may change once flutter for the web and or the linux desktop support is fully baked.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    Perhaps that is what they meant. Or maybe it isn't. Right now, Google seems like a rudderless ship floating in a sea of possibilities created by a bunch of very talented kids suffering from ADHD. I think someone at Google should grab the helm and actually do some steering.
    - sebe 7y ago
      I think the TL for Flutter is no spring chicken, he did an interesting post the other day, talks about what other languages they looked at when they decided to move on from Javascript. "Flutter was started by engineers from the Chrome team, and myself (who worked in the open source team as editor of the HTML standard)." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19856079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19856079
    - wsgeorge 7y ago
      I've always wondered how viable this was as a corporate strategy: why risk the entire company on one business when you could own several that may or may not succeed, each running (relatively) autonomously, etc... Your comment highlights one potential downside, ie. people not trusting the company because it looks confused on the outside.