David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

A Perspective on Xamarin  
# Friday, February 28, 2014
 
I've been looking at Xamarin recently, a company that provides technology to build apps for iOS, Android, Windows Phone, and other platforms. The diagram below summarizes one way to think about their offering compared to other popular alternatives. (Click on the diagram for a more readable version.)

 
Suppose you want to create an app that runs on iOS, Android, and Windows Phone. One way to do this is to create a portable HTML5/JavaScript app. As the diagram's first row shows, this lets you work in just one language and build just one app. These benefits (shown in green) are balanced by some significant limitations (shown in red). HTML5/JavaScript apps provide only a generic web-based user interface rather than a native UI for each device, and they allow only limited access to native functions on the device, such as the camera. They also can't be in app stores--you've got to find some other way to distribute them.

An alternative is to create a native app for each platform, as shown in the diagram's second row. This requires working in three languages to create three different apps, which is significantly more complicated, but it has some real advantages. Your app can now have a native user interface for each device, and it can fully access whatever functions the device provides. Native apps can also, of course, be in app stores.

Both of these approaches have some green aspects and some red aspects--pros and cons. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a solution that included only the green from both options? This is what Xamarin aspires to.

With Xamarin, you build one app in one language--C#--giving you a single main codebase. But you also customize this app for each platform. You create a native UI for each device, for example, and your app can access whatever device-specific functions it needs. The result can also be in the various vendor's app stores.

Even though Xamarin tries to offer the best aspects of the other two approaches, there's still some pain--you aren't really building just one app. Still, you can reuse some (maybe even most) of the app's code across all three platforms, which is likely to simplify the task of creating and maintaining a mobile app.

Xamarin is certainly seeing some success, which suggests that this technology is appealing to a chunk of developers. And in any case, the approach they've taken, providing a middle ground between the two most common options today, is definitely interesting.


4 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

What about hybrid with PhoneGap? How does that relate to Xamarin in your experience?
 

I'd argue that PhoneGap is more focused on a broader write-once-run-anywhere scenario. PhoneGap apps use web UIs, for example, rather than the native UI style of Xamarin.

If I were ordering the options from most portable/least control to least portable/most control, the list would look like this: HTML5/JavaScript, PhoneGap, Xamarin, native app.
 

David, the way I see it, basically using Xamarin is only slightly different structurally than using javascript and then implementing a bunch of different browser detections/behaviors (which, fortunately, script libraries are pretty good at handling if you use them). Xamarin is in one language, and whilst you must handle **more** of the device differences, I would expect that there will be libraries or functions that handle a good portion of that.

Another way of saying this is that HTML5/javascript is still not really that much "smoother" since it remains extremely browser fragile; whereas the Xamarin approach still requires you to face that device fragility head on. I don't think your "Number of apps required" is really the right label for that; or the answer to the first row should be something like, "Hopefully 1 to 1.5 apps (after customizations)".

What do you think of that argument?
 

I think it points out how messy this space is.

I wouldn't argue that my simple categorizations above are the only way to think about this. (I wouldn't even argue that they're the best way to think about it.) I believe it is useful, though, to have some way to organize--and thus to think more clearly about--the options. But it certainly is messy.
 

Post a Comment


<< Home