On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Ricky Clarkson <[email protected]> wrote: > And a pretty negative perspective on at least some of those: > > http://java.dzone.com/articles/multi-platform-frameworks-0 > > Still, nothing conceptually against the concept of a multi-platform > framework that holds water. They don't actually *have* to cater to the > lowest common denominator, even though perhaps the current crop do just > that. A winner in this space could be very successful.
Of course, from the article: "Sure, they can work in marginal use cases for the overly simplistic or the feature weak engagements, but if you are trying to build real mobile experiences that challenge the processing power, memory and resolution capabilities of the best mobile devices and OS's on the planet, then they simply SNAP." How many applications that you download are actually that intensive? Looking at the list of applications I have downloaded, I don't expect many of them are "challenging the processing power, memory, or resolution" capabilities of my device. Games, maybe, but I didn't think these frameworks were for games. (And, amusingly, if you are writing games you are probably using something like Unity, which is specifically designed for this.) This is akin to thinking you should shy away from some frameworks because they don't scale as well as others. Obviously don't pick one that cripples your ability to ever scale, but I question making that priority number one. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
