3 ms·
I say the opposite: Build with "mediocre-first" cross platforms (all of them are mediocre) is long term the MORE costly option. With native UI, eventually the
by mamcx 6y ago
I say the opposite: Build with "mediocre-first" cross platforms (all of them are mediocre) is long term the MORE costly option.
With native UI, eventually the development will stop. With cross-platform, you will, FOREVER, try to catch up.
P.D: i have used more than +12 main languages and as many or more UI toolkits.
The native UIs are running even close to a DECADE without nothing of significance on maintain. The rest? is rewrite, recode or workaround....
- cjbprime 6y agoThat's not the opposite of my point -- you're just rephrasing it. If I can buy a cheap roof for $2k but have to replace it every year, or an expensive roof for $15k that will last 50 years, then LONG TERM the cheap roof is the more costly option. But if I only have $2k instead of $15k, I'm not wrong to buy a cheap roof. Yelling at me about the long term costs of the cheap roof is missing the point. You're just saying that you're disappointed by my lack of $15k.
- mamcx 6y agoThats a fair point, just thinking that most think are in the second scenario (by pressures that also make cut testing, planning, etc) but really are in the first one. This happens a lot, because some of the "advice" in this industry is for "startups that if not ship something like now will die", when the majority of the work is not that disposable...