True, but Microsoft is such an enterprise company that it fits their customer base really well (e.g. "I don't care if it's pretty, I just need an inexpensive-to-build app for my 3,000 workers that runs on either platform").
I think most people don't understand Xamarin. Up until pretty recently Xamarin had no cross platform UI components. That is although all logic was shared, views had to be written separately for the different platforms - just like React Native.
With Xamarin Forms this has changed - you can add a Xamarin Form component and this will work adapt itself across the different platforms. The key word there is adapt - it is not like an HTML page, a Xamarin form input will look different on Android and iOS by default.
So I think your point, while valid, does not apply in any way to Xamarin!
> So I think your point, while valid, does not apply in any way to Xamarin!
I'm afraid GPs point is still valid - UX (the experience) is more than just native/native-looking widgets, but how the app conforms to platform conventions. For example, iOS apps typically include(d?) a back button at the top left corner; even if the button is rendered faithfully as an Android widget - that app will feel alien on Android (it was also an easy way to spot lazy iOS 'ports'). I think edge-swipes are another iOS convention for navigating back/forward, which would be foreign on Android, so I fully agree with GPs statement: Each platform requires UI work to make it really fit the platform in question
That was his point though. You build the UI in Xamarin.Forms and on the iPhone there is a back button in the top left corner, on Android there isn't. Automatically rearranging and conforming to the platform guidelines.
So I think your point, while valid, does not apply in any way to Xamarin!
I'll believe it when I see it. Cross-platform UI libraries like Qt, Gtk, SWT, etc, just never end up choosing quite the right widgets or having exactly the right look-and-feel as natively-designed apps.
If cross-platform is a bigger requirement than producing the best-possible UX, then perhaps Xamarin could deliver. I see this being a big deal with enterprise software. But that's almost never the case for most consumer-facing software; you're always much, much better off building your presentation code in a native UI toolkit.
Which users? Admins don't care about UX, they care about ticking checkboxes to appease management. End users are people like you and me, they want quality from their software. They may be forced to work with less then stellar software, but that does not mean they accept it.
Run some lists with images on them on iPhone 5. Anecdotal, and I am sure you can dig into metal to improve performance, but out of the box, it's kinda poor. I still like React and I'm hopeful React-Native will improve.
Thanks. I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that JavaScriptCore can't use JIT compilation when running in an iOS application other than Safari.
"JavaScriptCore is an optimizing virtual machine. JavaScriptCore consists of the following building blocks: lexer, parser, start-up interpreter (LLInt), baseline JIT, a low-latency optimizing JIT (DFG), and a high-throughput optimizing JIT (FTL)."
Apps can use JavaScriptCore, and JavaScriptCore can use JIT, but these can't happen together, because third-party apps aren't permitted to execute writeable memory.
I haven't used React Native, but I've done quite a bit with native bridging with JavaScriptCore and v8. If your performance bottlenecks are crossing the Javascript-to-native boundary, JIT can't help you. And crossing the bridge boundary isn't the cheapest operation.
Swift isn't a significant improvement over C#. Also, keep in mind that C# benefits from the whole Microsoft ecosystem, which includes Visual Studio.
Beyond the language, what's even more important is the application model. That's where frameworks like React Native have the edge. This might change if Microsoft upgrades Xamarin.Forms into full-blown Universal Windows App support (think WPF on iOS and Android).
You might just be looking at the language from a syntax perspective. However the two are very different in the way that you compile and run them. In C# the code is translated into a custom bytecode (IR) and then the CLR is used to execute that and manage the memory through GC.
In Swift's case it compiles down to native processor code instructions and can have optimisations applied ahead of time. This allows the app to run faster than a VM+JIT would do and therefore longer batter management. The overhead of the runtime is a lot lower since memory is ref counted and doesn't need to run GC periodically.
C# has always had support to AOT to native code since the early days via ngen. The only issue was that more effort was spent in the JIT compiler and ngen requires dynamic linking.
C# is compiled to native code on Windows Phone since version 8.
The C# extensions for Singularity (Sing#) and Midori (System C#) generate static binaries. Work which served as starting point to MDIL on WP 8.x and .NET Native.
The new .NET Native compiler even exposes SIMD.
Mono also supports AOT compilation since a long time.
I would say the fact MS is shipping products on Linux, considering their historical stance, makes it more likely, but your sentiment is probably correct in that it may not mean it is likely. Ten years ago I would have laughed at the idea. Today, I have to think quite a bit more about whether it's likely.
I would not use the existence of an editor built on web technologies as opening the possibility that something as entrenched in Windows as Visual Studio would be leaping to cross platform.
How much does licensing a set of Windows keys run?
How does the .NET GC impact me versus Swift's ARC?
How much RAM does Visual Studio eat up after you've been coding for a while?
How slow, unresponsive or buggy is it these days?
of course there's "ecosystem creep"... If I'm going C# on mobile, I'll naturally be influenced to consider C# on the server... how much do Windows servers cost? and since they're a "first class citizen" on windows, what about SQL Server?
I would expect this just to be basic Swift support including -perhaps- the Foundation library (String, Array and other "low level" functionality). I don't think this Swift port has currently any easy way to create apps with a graphical user interface using some sort of Java bridge. So compared to Xamarin, using Swift for Android apps would be pretty limited.
Swift String, Array, etc. are not part of Foundation, they are part of the swift runtime library. They have mechanisms for converting to and from NSArray/NSString representations, though (and because of that, their internal structure is quite similar). But that mechanism is disabled in Linux (and obviously I assume Android).
That's correct-- Swift's native String/Array/etc. are part of Swift's native stdlib.
NSString/NSArray and friends (along with the bridging code to go between them and the Swift stdlib types) are part of the open-source Foundation, though. Eventually, that should be present in any reasonably complete Swift runtime environment-- it includes APIs, like networking and date/time handling, that would typically be considered essential but aren't part of Swift's stdlib.
AFAIK Foundation does not have any special handling for swift at all. Swift is just taking advantage of the fact that the people working on it can act with authority on the memory layout of Objective-C Foundation objects.
Also the OSS Foundation is... not quite the same thing as what apple ships on their platforms.
That's where Objective C bridging happens. That's irrelevant on Linux or Android, since there's no Obj-C runtime.
OSS Foundation (which is composed of pure Swift code, plus the plain C CoreFoundation which is also open) implements bridging between Swift types and Foundation types itself-- see (for example) the Array extension for bridging to NSArray at [1]. That code's what will (again, eventually) ship on Linux and presumably on Android, because it provides compatibility support for Swift libraries originally targeted to Apple platforms and fills out certain core functionality that's not part of Swift's stdlib (networking being a big one). This work is still ongoing and, if one were to try to actually use it right now, you'd run into lots of bits that aren't implemented yet.
That is true. I recognize that to some extent I was talking past you, but I really just wanted to clarify where the responsibility lies when there is an objc runtime.
Yes. It's a poor-man's implementation of namespaces, since Objective C doesn't have them and they didn't want to pollute the global namespace with their core classes.
C# devs like myself are interested in Xamarin are interested because they don't have too learn new language / tooling to do mobile dev. Learning Swift isn't any more appealing than learning Objective C.
I care about syntax so Swift is far more appealing to me. Compare print("Hello, world!") in Swift to Hello World in Objective-C, which the article jokingly calls "gibberish."
Why? Microsoft will likely offer Swift support in the UWA platform soon, they already support Objective C. I suspect they will announce Swift is now supported under project Islandwood at Build.
I did a little googling because you sparked my curiosity and it's happening. “Silver” brings Apple's Swift language to .NET and I found at least one mention of Silver and .NET Core.
