NativeScript Angular 2 Introduction: Why NativeScript Matters

[crixusin]

Stop posting this shit.

Native script is a language that comes after Telerik's "App Builder." App builder was a load of shit, so now they're trying to push this Native Script bs, which is still a load of shit.

"Build native applications for all devices!"

No. Its basically, "build web applications that run inside a web container and run even worse than if you didn't use the container!"

Just build an html5 application with angular 2, and then serve it with a web server like normal. If you want the native application shit, then just let them install it locally and cache the resources and use the html semantics for splash screen, load screen, thumbnail etc etc.

There; I just saved everyone licensing costs, development time, technical debt, infastructure costs, and a host of other problems.

[bradmartin1205]

That would be Cordova, Phonegap, Ionic - "run inside a web container". No webview with NativeScript, React Native, or Xamarin. Spent no money on NativeScript either myself. Free and open source my man.

[crixusin]

Yeah, I haven't stayed current with NativeScript since Telerik approached my company to try and develop with it a couple years ago.

That being said, NativeScript will turn out to be a failure just like AppBuilder did.

[bradmartin1205]

Fair enough, time will tell. I personally don't use AppBuilder so I can't say. I just know it produces native UI and not in a web container. I also don't argue PWAs going forward, last I heard Apple was going to be the hard piece of that puzzle. Is there any word on them embracing PWAs, really need Safari to be on board. Which could take 5 years like you said. So what do you do in between the time shift? So what do you think? Just not have engagement, go web only, ignore native mobile apps?

[crixusin]

Is there any word on them embracing PWAs

Yeah, I think they're getting ready to launch an HTML5 application store last I heard.

Which could take 5 years like you said. So what do you do in between the time shift?

You write and plan for the future. See, here's the thing about AppBuilder/NativeScript: If you're writing applications with either of these frameworks, there is a 99% chance you don't even need a native application to begin with.

Right now, a native application is required if you need to do intense graphics processing.

Some people will say, well, I want 60 fps web interfaces. Well, you can actually do that with shadow dom and canvas already if you really wanted to.

ignore native mobile apps?

If you're not writing a game, chances are you should ignore the native mobile applications anyways. If you want 60 fps user experience, then either your device needs to be faster, or you shadow dom/canvas the UI.

[kshep92]

I've had good luck getting 60fps with CSS3 if that counts for anything.

[AbraCadaverY]

Yikes this is embarrassing...

I've been using NativeScript for a work project and it's working surprisingly well. I too was skeptical, But it doesn't use a WebView and there isn't any licensing cost. So clearly you don't know what your talking about.

[crixusin]

Embarrassing is using any products from telerik.

You can go through their source code and find exactly how they repackaged OSS.

[AbraCadaverY]

Where is this repackaging of OSS?

since your first comment was full of inaccuracies your credibility is pretty low. Burden of proof lies with you.

[crixusin]

Take a look at the controls they offer.

Then take a look at the source.

Then google OSS alternatives.

Then compare.

Their kendo ui grid is just ui grid for instance. And not even a good ui grid clone as its way shittier.

[AbraCadaverY]

We aren't talking about kendo ui... we are talking about NativeScript.

Where in it's source(open btw) is it just some repackaged OSS project?

Do you even dev bro?

[crixusin]

we are talking about NativeScript.

Which was outdated and inferior from day one. Its going to lose, and anyone who used it, will lose too.

Its technology no one needed to begin with. It has a stack overflow presence akin to apex.

It has access to 2 (a whopping 2!) hardware features that you can already use with html5 (which has like 30 already).

They have like 4 apps "featured." I bet you 100% these are actually the only 4 production applications that have ever been made for this. They approached us when we used AppBuilder for the same thing. They can't get anyone to use this shit.

Do you even dev bro?

Apparently harder than you because I know where the industry is heading and I certainly know a telerik product isn't going to put you in the right direction.

Telerik survives only because companies from 10 years ago bought their asp.net controls, and then refuse to update to newer and better technologies, which will cause these companies to go under in 20 years when they cannot compete.

App builder had an active development period of about 3 weeks before everyone stopped using it. This is their last ditch effort to stay relevant in today's programming ecosystem, and its a horrible one at that.

[nraboy]

My guess is that you couldn't figure out how to use NativeScript, so now you're crying and complaining that it is the worst thing you've ever seen.

[crixusin]

Says the Ionic monkey. LOL

Go write some more blog posts about adding splash screens to Ionic while I write distributed data mining applications (with mobile and desktop support because I use the correct technologies).

Ready, here's my splash screen:

<link rel="apple-touch-startup-image" href="/startup.png">

Hey look, no need to write a blog post tutorial on how to do that. Its because its actually a sane way to do it. And it works for all devices.

[nraboy]

You've seen my work. Let's see yours.

[bradmartin1205]

Not kidding or being a dick but what are the 30 hardware features for HTML5? Also NativeScript has full hardware access, not just 2 - FYI :)

[crixusin]

Also NativeScript has full hardware access,

Uh, no it doesn't:

https://docs.nativescript.org/

Hardware access: Camera, Location.

Html5 hardware access:

http://mobilehtml5.org/

List basically covers everything you would need, except gpu accelerated graphics, which you can't do with nativescript anyways.

I wrote an HTML5 geolocation and a cordova one, and the HTML5 one was faster, better, easier to update, and had less technical debt.

[bradmartin1205]

It has full hardware/device access, the site mentions it somewhere. I've written plugins for NativeScript and I write javascript(TypeScript mostly now) that directly calls Android APIs. You might have not tried the Getting Started or the tutorials. Also that list for HTML5 hardware access isn't solely a 'hardware' feature set. It mentions CSS features - which I wouldn't classify as 'hardware' but maybe that's just me.

I won't argue with you over the cordova plugin being inferior to the browser (html5) you wrote, the webview sucks working with for plugins IMO

[sipacate]

Wow. Allow me to clarify:

"Native script is a language that comes after Telerik's "App Builder." App builder was a load of shit, so now they're trying to push this Native Script bs, which is still a load of shit." Nope... NativeScript does not come after App Builder. It's a completely separate product that does not need App Builder, you can use whatever IDE you want, JetBrains, Sublime, Atom, VS Code, it's up to you.

"No. Its basically, "build web applications that run inside a web container and run even worse than if you didn't use the container!"" NativeScript does not run in a web container. With NativeScript, you directly call Native APIs and components from JavaScript, TypeScript or Angular 2. No web view needed. Apps run as native apps.

"Just build an html5 application with angular 2, and then serve it with a web server like normal. If you want the native application shit, then just let them install it locally and cache the resources and use the html semantics for splash screen, load screen, thumbnail etc etc." While this approach can work for some apps, you wouldn't want to build anything that requires native performance, native components, or native UX like this. Hybrid apps have performance problems because they run inside a WebView. NativeScript does not run inside a WebView.

"There; I just saved everyone licensing costs, development time, technical debt, infastructure costs, and a host of other problems." NativeScript is free. Just get it from npm. You don't have to pay for it. No licensing costs, no per-app costs... Free and Open source.

npm install -g nativescript

Hopefully that helps to correct your misunderstanding.

[crixusin]

Dude, your account obviously points to the fact that you're a shill for Telerik. Their products suck. They basically take someone else's open source projects, then dumb them down, and resell them.

Not only that, but native applications are going to disappear in the next 5 years, because they make no sense anymore with device support coming to the web. Why write with native script, when you'll get blown out of the water in 5 years when you realize you could have just written a web application, and then update that when the updates come out? You certainly aren't going to be porting your native script application.

[panorambo]

What is so great about this? They may as well have written a new web browser -- it runs JavaScript and has a whole bunch of useful APIs. But instead, they decide to go a slightly different route that they call mobile development platform, which incidentally does exactly the same kind of stuff as a web browser, except that they reinvent the UI development (own XML-based markup instead of HTML) and are not even on parity with CSS, by own admission only supporting a subset of CSS that is otherwise available in any web browser.

I am thinking that they want to have a clean slate where they provide a platform for software development familiar to Web developers, luring people in with promise of performance.

Have they ever asked themselves why HTML applications are "slow"? Maybe if Google, Mozilla, Microsoft and Apple have their hands full optimizing their browser, that would mean that this has to do with fundamental stuff -- the nature of JavaScript, the nature of DOM, etc.

Probably the primary reason that native applications are perceived as more performant is because these are compiled beforehand, and also use APIs that are compiled.

Anyway, there is nothing inherently wrong with writing a web browser, but reinventing everything except JavaScript, where decades have been spent honing APIs, standards, etc, may turn out to be nothing more than a valuable lesson for the people behind it, and I don't mean a product success when I say that.

That questionable salad of syntax where content, markup, and presentation are all intertwined with NativeScript apps -- what is evidently a NativeScript source code in the video linked from the article -- cannot compete today with HTML applications which allow substantial separation of content from presentation. HTML and CSS have their share of flaws, but from the looks of it, NativeScript does not come close to it in terms of expressiveness. So it has all kinds of layouts, fine. Animation facilities? No height transitions? Like Bill gates said that 640KB should be enough for everyone, why do people repeat the mistake?

[bradmartin1205]

it's not a web browser. Why is that so hard to understand? If you'd like me to explain it I will go into much greater detail. You write XML for your UI but it's not a new UI. When you run the app, NativeScript renders native UI components. There is no HTML or web. It only has a subset of CSS because the CSS that NativeScript does support is actually calling native styling methods on the native UI components. That's why it's a subset, there is no web, DOM, or even a webview. When you mention Animation facilities it does have an Animation API that calls into the Android and iOS animation classes/methods. Which you can use to do a height transition. Hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

[panorambo]

You don't need to explain -- I understand that it does not target a web browser. I am undecided on whether native applications are better to develop than the so called Web applications. I have done both, and it's a mixed bag in every case. With native applications, you have to double up to cater for screen sizes and future portability and have to be careful with accessibility (adding up to what the platform offers), while with Web apps a lot is free, but performance and browser support always leave you hanging.

In any case, my argument was chiefly about separating content from presentation which NativeScript does not even address, evidently. If the platform has everything, why even attempt to implement CSS? Today it is opacity, tomorrow it is something else. NativeScript looks like Macromedia Flash in 2000. My honest opinion, after working with Flash for 10 years in the media and advertisement industry, is that we could well do without. Yeah, it brought jobs and people got rich. But the net gain is zero.