4 ms·
It's even worse when you consider that in a very real way, the differences in these platforms largely exist to moat themselves. Apple creates their own program
by dimmke 6y ago
It's even worse when you consider that in a very real way, the differences in these platforms largely exist to moat themselves.
Apple creates their own programming languages then implements proprietary frameworks inside these languages.
So you have developers that really have to specialize in doing that kind of development if you want to do native. So you have an "iOS" team and an "Android" team all to deliver the same thing as your web app but on locked down proprietary devices. It really only serves the phone vendors themselves.
But I think React Native/Electron have done a decent job at solving this problem as much as it can be solved. It's important to acknowledge that web standards for html/JS really still aren't geared towards creating fully interactive applications. A lot of what exists is hacks. So I don't think you can fully lay the blame at companies for not wanting to build their platforms entirely on web technologies.
- c-cube 6y agoGoogle is also trying to imitate Apple here, with Dart and flutter. The only reasonable explanation for these (especially Dart being exhumed from its thumb so it can become the only language supported by flutter) is vendor lock in.
- chgibb 6y agoAre you concerned about being locked into Dart as a developer?
- hnedeotes 6y agoYeap, the biggest problem in my view is not the usage of other technologies other than web, is that those technologies don't transfer. I would be fine with other technology that allowed the interop, I've written quite a bit in js and interesting stuff but it's far from being my fav thing for sure. > But I think React Native/Electron have done a decent job at solving this problem as much as it can be solved. Well in a way they do, and I'm not dissing the work done on those fronts, but it's not the same thing. These solutions and development frameworks (even the native ones from the OS venders) are mostly cookie cutter things. They don't really allow for exploring the breadth of what is available on our computers (desktop and pocket) in any meaningful or innovative way when it comes to UX. In the case of Electron and others in the same vein they still circle back, because they're implemented exactly using browser technology. > It's important to acknowledge that web standards for html/JS really still aren't geared towards creating fully interactive applications That also shows how much better it could be if a "building blocks" OS layer/API that is responsibility of the vendor but the same across platforms existed, because you can still build amazing experiences using something that wasn't made for that all. (edit* I mean building blocks not as in "here's an accordion widget, or a button", I mean building blocks to build those things, stop thinking you somehow reached nirvana) Even ancillary projects like browsers would benefit from something like that. Probably this is not in the interest of many different factions due to many different issues and objectives. The internet, the www, and the browser is proof, even with all its warts, that this interoperability is good. Transferable skills are good. Having better foundations is good. Most of the interested companies make billions, they should push this forward. There's plenty to differentiate between competing OS/hardware as it is. Better, more maintainable projects is good. We'll fill the gap of what we don't need to do with more useful work for sure. Native will still make sense for a whole host of things.