Live data from Hacker News

Google's cross-platform Flutter UI toolkit goes 1.0

techcrunch.com

181–190 of 343 posts

Re: Google's cross-platform Flutter UI toolkit goes 1.0

#181
Look at how many comments on this, or any other Flutter thread, mention hot reload.

What I take from that is this: if your toolchain makes rapid iteration easy people will figure out how to work around almost anything else.

Language/framework/tool creators rarely put enough time into the developer experience. And by that I mean the experience of a developer working with your tool for 8 hours a day. I can get more done with a crappy tool with 500ms compile time versus a perfect tool with 10s compile time.

Re: Google's cross-platform Flutter UI toolkit goes 1.0

#182
I don't understand why Apple is the only one left that uses a strongly typed pre-compiled native programming language. It really isn't hard to use Swift compared to other programming languages. And it's a really nice to use, safe and if you want it to be also a language that allows you to write really fast algorithms.

Re: Google's cross-platform Flutter UI toolkit goes 1.0

#183
post #83

Cross-platform frameworks that don’t use native controls have suffered from problems... - They inevitably don’t look or work like native apps in ways both big and small, frustrating and annoying users. (... the spell-checker doesn’t work right or text selection is janky or unavailable where it should be, certain short-cuts work differently or have different gestures or keys, etc.) - they don’t get updates to native c…

There's one place where none of this matters: Games engines.

Games have the same, consistent (hopefully) easy to use interface across every platform they support. They either accomplish this, or they simply don't survive on the market.

It has to be said that most modern UI frameworks ARE game engines, anyway. Or maybe its a tautology: game engines eventually become platforms, which become "OS's on other OS's".

Which means that in this scenario:

> devs have yet another set of tech and tools they have to master. And I mean devs in the wide sense here, designers, coders, testers, etc. Some also have to become masters of how the framework and each host OS interact, in order to debug the inevitable problems.

.. It becomes moot whether you're using an engine or an OS's own specific platform. You have either an 'engine developer' or a 'user-facing developer', where the former does everything needed on the target OS to support the latter.

My personal preference: treat onboard native UI frameworks as a plug-out interface to the engine, port the engine everywhere, have my apps look and feel and function the same, no matter where they are running. Screw the OS vendors and their UI's - they change their frameworks so frequently and for no good reason other than to lock in the poor developer who thinks he has to learn their framework, or else not be competitive.

That may be true, but the real competition is in building an app that functions - and functions well - wherever you port it. To accomplish that, you've gotta be willing to be both an expert at the native framework, while also abandoning it ...

Re: Google's cross-platform Flutter UI toolkit goes 1.0

#184
post #182

I don't understand why Apple is the only one left that uses a strongly typed pre-compiled native programming language. It really isn't hard to use Swift compared to other programming languages. And it's a really nice to use, safe and if you want it to be also a language that allows you to write really fast algorithms.

Dart is strongly typed and pre-compiled, at least when packaged. It can run in interpreted mode in development for live/hot reload: a major advantage over Swift. Flutter also provides a first class Reactive UI story: something sorely lacking in native iOS (or Mac) development.

PS Java (or Kotlin) are AOT compiled in all recent versions of Android.

Re: Google's cross-platform Flutter UI toolkit goes 1.0

#186
post #83

Cross-platform frameworks that don’t use native controls have suffered from problems... - They inevitably don’t look or work like native apps in ways both big and small, frustrating and annoying users. (... the spell-checker doesn’t work right or text selection is janky or unavailable where it should be, certain short-cuts work differently or have different gestures or keys, etc.) - they don’t get updates to native c…

These seem like valid concerns at first glance, but I feel these are not really issues in practice (only in theory).

>> - They inevitably don’t look or work like native apps in ways both big and small, frustrating and annoying users. (... the spell-checker doesn’t work right or text selection is janky or unavailable where it should be, certain short-cuts work differently or have different gestures or keys, etc.)

as `coldtea` points out below, this is not really an issue in today's ecosystem. Branding themes are more prevelant on most apps people are using than not.

>> they don’t get updates to native controls... e.g. if the OS adds some new drag-and-drop capability to text fields the framework doesn’t get it unless and until the framework is updated (and the app is updated to use the newer version of the framework). Of course, some things are never deemed important enough to be adopted by the framework.

If people are writing cross-platform apps and want to use new platform-specific features, wouldn't they have to write platform-specific code anyway if they were native? I'm not sure this is a newly introduced problem in any sense.

>> - Ambitious frameworks that really try to minimize the gaps between apps build with the framework vs native app grow to be very large. They take on the role of the entire app-facing OS API, which is truely massive in today’s systems. This leads to slow-loading/building, resource-hungry apps. Each app becomes a mini-OS unto itself.

I guess that's valid; but I'm curious about cases where code-heavy app sizes have actually hindered app downloads. I don't really know, but I haven't heard that this has been a big problem? For reference, a hello world flutter apk clocks in at 5 MB.

>> - there are cross-platform issues, like fonts that fit on one host OS get cut off in another, or differences in volume control etc.

Flutter renders all of its fonts itself natively, using the same way Chrome does it. Has this been a problem?

>> - dealing with the cross-platform issues the framework doesn’t solve becomes very difficult for the app developer. They’ve got to find a way in, through, or around the framework (in an area it already isn’t handling well).

>> - many potential third-party tools will have native support and bindings but most won’t make accommodations for your framework, so you end up having to support that yourself, or do without.

Is this a remark on an incomplete cross platform framework (i.e., flutter needs more features) and that it hasn't reached enough popular usage, or that cross platform frameworks have this problem? If not, it feels like the alternative to not using a cross platform framework is to write everything for each platform in a platform-specific way, which might be considered much worse. What's the issue at hand here?

>> - devs have yet another set of tech and tools they have to master. And I mean devs in the wide sense here, designers, coders, testers, etc. Some also have to become masters of how the framework and each host OS interact, in order to debug the inevitable problems.

This feels like an emotional assessment of having to learn something new. If this technology is meant to simplify/remove problems that people have today, then isn't it worth learning? I guess you might feel this way if you felt that flutter isn't adding anything of value to other popular solutions today.

Re: Google's cross-platform Flutter UI toolkit goes 1.0

#188
post #144
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are on the verge of VR and AR and I don't see how flutter can help e.g. processing >100fps Video Feed using OpenCV library. The demo they presented on stage with ML and smile detection had quite big latency. I wouldn't call it real time. I can't find any claim from Flutter team that 100fps video processing is even their goal. So that's a strange metric to measure it by - especially since it's competing against J…

I have recently gave a look at Qt after 5 years and it seems lots of things have changed for the better. You get the same hot reload like flutter when modifying GUI using QML (with V-Play you can even hot reload not just on simulator/emulator but on real device). Qt material theme has good look and feel. Sadly iOS theme is a little bit lacking. C++ is probably not the most productive language to write business logic…

Sadly, Qt has so many threats on their download pages that I feel it's only suited to companies that can keep full time lawyers on payroll...

Re: Google's cross-platform Flutter UI toolkit goes 1.0

#189
post #44
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I just don't trust it to be around long enough to be an investment for me." Normally I would be inclined to agree with you given that this is Google, but the good news is that Flutter is open source. So even if Google discontinues internal development on it, it's likely that the community will continue it anyway.

That's what I thought about Tcl/Tk.

Tcl/Tk is 30 years old.

I would be willing to bet my retirement that none of the now-popular presentation technologies will be mainstream 30 years from now. They just don't have that kind of shelf life.

If Flutter lasts a decade, it will have lived gloriously. React should be so lucky.

Re: Google's cross-platform Flutter UI toolkit goes 1.0

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GWT served them well for 8 years. Now the Dart one is expected to last for the next 7+ years. Read this interview if you're interested to learn more on their reasoning: https://news.dartlang.org/2016/03/the-new-adwords-ui-uses-da...

7+ years from early 2016, which means 4+ years today. Take it as you will. The point being that just because Google uses something for AdWords doesn't mean Google will maintain it for the long run. I might find other arguments more convincing.

All technologies will get replaced by something else eventually. Presentation technologies have a short shelf life. GWT is 12 years old now, that's quite a good run.
Post reply on HN