I am considering making a small app for desktop pc's. I would mainly like to have support for mac and for ubuntu (linux) and I wouldn't mind support for windows as well. An easy way seems to develop an app using Unity, but it is more known to be an engine for games.
To my simple logic, there should be no reason why an app cannot be built with Unity. A platform that features the ability to create massive laser marine gunbattles should be capable of rending pretty buttons and a user interface. The plus side is that with unity you can port to all platforms that I would like this app to run on as well.
Am I making a bad assumption? Are there any people that have done such things? The app I would like to make might be open source, does the Unity platform limit me in any way here?
You are correct in your reasoning that it is possible to make a normal app with Unity, but this of course is not what Unity was intended for. It is geared towards rendering and updating scenes (including physics, game logic, etc.). If you do not need the notion of scenes in your app, then you will add additional complexity to your development and run-time overhead that you would not normally need.
Another drawback is that you will need to abide by Unity's licensing with your app which may or may not be an issue for you (https://store.unity3d.com - See links at the very bottom for other special licenses, such as for gambling).
Since you mentioned Unity specifically, it uses Mono for some of its run-time support across platforms. Perhaps you want to consider using just Mono and associated tools instead (http://www.mono-project.com).
Related
This one is a quick question regarding the possibility of having the same LnF (same look) on Android and iOS, is there an API that can provide something like this? SImilar to MAUI in MoSync or IwUI in marmaladeSDK?
Basically what I would like to do is to create my UI once for both iOS and Android using monodeveloper.
Note: Before anyone downvotes anymore, please take into account that this is a real requirement for a real project. The question is not without reason, since after looking at the documentation, I can see that Xamarin does not provide such solution, but other multi-platform SDKs do provide such solution, and since the mono ecosystem is vast, perhaps there is a third party library that can provide such functionality.
Unfortunately most of your code portability will be on the backend (non UI) when leveraging Monotouch. There are far too many inconsistencies with how an Android UI vs iOS UI are implemented respectively to their OS's.
Have you checked out http://ifactr.com/overview ? It is a paid product so I haven't tried it, but it might be at least work looking into. Other than this, no there is no cross-platform UI if you go the Mono route.
Taken directly from their page:
"But we learned that even with as much code sharing that MonoCross provides, for applications with significant UI layers, the burden of creating platform-specific UIs can be overbearing. So we created the iFactr UI abstraction layer, which allows developers to code to an abstract UI interface, and then reference our iFactr concrete implementations of that interface for all the mobile platforms, both as native UI implementations and HTML5 UI implementations.
While not a silver bullet for all mobile development, it is designed and optimized for rapidly creating data-driven UIs that enterprise users tend to demand. And because it’s integrated with MonoCross, you can mix-and-match your iFactr UI screens that are shared across platforms with screens that you can code to target specific platforms using the entire set of native APIs available on each mobile OS."
The problem is Android and iOS have different UI / UX metaphors.
Take this for example: http://kintek.com.au/blog/portkit-ux-metaphor-equivalents-for-ios-6-and-android-4/
The differences are fairly significant. If you use a development wrapper then you'll have to 100% rely on their tools. We've had experience with Titanium in the past and it wasn't good at all.
What is the difference between Metro apps written in web-development technologies and ones written in XAML/C#, etc.? Does Microsoft Metro API provide hooks for Javascript, where it's all native for C#? Should they work hand in hand, or is it the developers choice which route to go?
Is there certain functionality that cannot be implemented if using JS (other than OpenGL hardware capabilities)?
The reason I'm wondering is to know which technologies are necessary for building extensive Metro apps, so that when I get to a certain point I'm not stopped by a brick wall, letting me know that I used the wrong technology.
Microsoft has put in a lot of work to make Javascript a first-order language on par with C# for WinRT development. Both Javascript and C# have direct access to the WinRT API via language projections. That is, there is a unique binding specific to the language to the underlying API. So neither language is any more "native" than the other.
You should be able to write an equivalent Metro app in either language. At a high-level, it really does come down to which language/environment you are more comfortable with.
However, there are a couple of differences that should factor into the decision. First, WinRT components can only be written in C# or C++. Javascript can only consume thse components. If there is an intent to create reusable/shareable components, should keep this in mind.
Second, although the Windows Phone 8 SDK has not been released yet, there are indications that Windows Phone 8 apps can only be written in C#. If there is an intent to create similar apps for both the tablet as well as the phone, this is probably a serious consideration.
There haven't been a lot of performance-based studies comparing the two in a Metro app, so it's hard to say whether that will become a factor or not.
Then, there is also 3rd-party support to consider. C#/XAML is well established and has a lot of 3rd-party support. But similarly, Javascript has a lot of 3rd-party libraries available (e.g. jQuery) that for the most part can be brought in and used in a Metro app as well. I would give a slight edge to C#/XAML, but it seems like support is good for both.
I've been looking over Sproutcore, Ember and Blossom and other competitive framework efforts (e.g. Sencha) to select for a HTML5 client side application project. The state, information, and documentation from these projects is a bit fragmented and in need of clarity, so I am presenting this to the community.
My project is to be a native-like HTML5 application with desktop level complexity in need of a complete application framework, that will work well on desktops and run with good speed on mobile devices with touch awareness. The widgets should be native-like (not web-like), but customizable so to be unique to the application.
Questions/framework Requirement:
Native vs. Web style Applications. Framework should make it easy to
build native-like user experiences with the ability to make a custom
native feel (not just wholly imitating mac/win/iOS). Some of the text
surrounding Ember indicates it is really meant for web-style apps - which given no
UI layer maybe goes without saying. Frameworks like Sencha, can it easily accommodate custom widgets?
Mobile Appropreatness. Framework should be appropreate for mobile devices and have facilities for touch input and
gestures.Several notes I've seen in my research indicate that Sproutcore and
Blossom aren't very appropreate for mobile, and that Ember is better
geared towards mobile (size?). It isn't clear whether the
touch/mobile libraries are very developed in Sproutcore/Blossom and if they will be supported it the
current state going forward. (and blossom compile to native is not acceptable). On the otherhand, Frameworks like Sencha, do they have the facility to work well on desktop as well as mobile?
Framework Completeness. The framework should be a fairly complete application framework, with desktop-like OO expectations and management for automatically and efficiently syncing, managing, and serializing the data model with the server. Not sure if there is much difference between Ember and Sproutcore, how do other efforts like Sencha stack up?
Your question covers a lot of ground. I will pick some quotes and answer them directly.
My project is to be a native-like HTML5 application with desktop level
complexity in need of a complete application framework
Ember.js specifically bills itself as a "web-style" framework, not a an RIA framework. That said, you can build anything you want, but you would be trailblazing.
Sproutcore bills itself as an RIA framework. You have complete control over the DOM, so if you can do it in the browser, you can do it in Sproutcore.
Ext-Js is also a good application framework for desktops (Sencha Touch is for Mobile). If you like the way its examples look, then its a good choice. You can of course customize the dom and write your own widgets.
Blossom is basically Sproutcore with a canvas based view layer. It just went into beta, so you would definitely be trailblazing if you went with it.
So, you can basically use any of the frameworks you mentioned for the RIA part of your enterprise. I would eliminate Ember.js simply because the framework itself purposes itself for web-style (e.g. twitter) as opposed to RIA (e.g. iCloud) apps, which is not what you want.
The widgets should be native-like (not web-like), but customizable so
to be unique to the application.
All three of your remaining options can do this. If you like Senchas widgets, its a good choice. I don't know if they are native enough for you. That said, with any of the remaining frameworks you can customize the DOM to your heart's content.
Mobile Appropreatness. Framework should be appropreate for mobile devices
This is a tough one. Sencha Touch (which is separate but similar to Ext-Js) is very popular and gets the job done. It is performant too; a non-trivial app ran fine on my original Droid (which surprised me).
Sproutcore is very heavy weight. It has mobile support (i.e. for touch events) but you need to very careful about the dom you create, so as not to overwhelm the browser. I wouldn't choose Sproutcore for mobile, although you could if you are very careful.
and blossom compile to native is not acceptable
That does not seem reasonable to me. To be clear, NONE of these frameworks run natively on mobile devices; they ALL run in the browser. Blossom comes closes as the canvas API is mapped directly to the native API, giving you a truly native app. The only way you could get closer would be to use objective-c/java for iOs and Android.
So basically, at this point your left with Sencha(Ext-Js) and Blossom. Blossom is still in Beta, you would be trailblazing if you tried it. Sencha is established, has great support (Blossom support is good on irc), and a large developer base.
So Sencha is the choice, unless you really want to be cutting edge, and take a little risk.
Troy. Indeed, ember can run with another view layer framework such as jQuery Mobile which can provide a "app-like" look and feel.There is a github project: https://github.com/LuisSala/emberjs-jqm. In my view, if you need very cool animation you can use blossom.If you want to build a app, SC or ember should be OK. I'll choose ember because it 's loosely coupled.
I am new to smartphone application Development, I have worked with .NET web and Windows Forms applications and only used the C# language.
I am planning to make a simple application which can run on all mobile OSes, like BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, Android phones, iPhone, etc. On searching I found that all have different OSes and uses different languages. I can use the C# language and .NET since I am aware about it. After some thinking, is it possible to make a web-based application using normal website coding but make it work like an application?
Please suggest some method to make a application which is possible to run on all smartphones. What technology or tools can be used for developing it?
The best approach to create truly cross platform app is to use HTML5 and JavaScript. All the other options will be painful. However, of course you can't access all the features with these web applications.
One interesting framework for creating HTML5/JavaScript based apps is PhoneGap (http://www.phonegap.com/). It has quite many API's available and wide support for different platforms. (Note that browser performance varies between devices so make sure not to add too much effects and glitter)
For native apps, there's no that many frameworks but one interesting is MoSync (http://www.mosync.com/)
There can be multiple approaches to create a Cross Smatphone plateform apllication.
If you want to code just once and want to to run on multiple enviroments without any change you must go for some javascript/HTML5 bassed solutions. One that I work with is NGCore. It is a development framework that allows games to be authored in JavaScript but with native application performance by leveraging ngmoco's ngCore libraries.
Other approach that will best suit your needs is to go for a Environment like MonoTouch. Its C# based and AFAIK you can use most of the .net API in MonoDevelope. It lets you reuse most of your code on another environment.
I've been developing for Windows and *nix platforms for quite some time, and am looking to move into Mac development. I am tossing up between using ObjC/Cocoa and C++/Qt4.5.
The C++/moc semantics make more sense to me, and improving knowledge in Qt seems like a sensible thing to do given that you end up with a skill set that covers more platforms.
Am I likely to handicap my applications by skipping Cocoa?
The sample Qt applications look pretty Mac-native to me, but they are quite simple so potentially don't tell the whole story. Are there other pros to the Xcode way that Qt doesn't have, such as packaging, deployment, etc.?
Here's an easy way to answer it:
If you were developing a Windows app with .NET or MFC, would you handicap your applications by using Qt? If the answer to that is yes, then the situation is likely to be the same on the Mac.
A few negatives I can think of off the top of my head:
Licensing
Qt apps, while good, are not completely a native UI experience and there's things a native UI designer can do in Cocoa which boggle the mind. While I can't be sure that all the same functionality isn't available in Qt, I doubt it.
Qt is always a little behind. If Microsoft or Apple come out with a great new technology, you have to wait for the Qt developers to update Qt.
However, with all that said, only you can determine the business value of using Qt. If you think cross-platform development is going to be a major part of your development, then Qt might be worth it, despite the issues mentioned.
Ask yourself: how many of the best Mac applications that you know of use Qt instead of native Cocoa?
For our robotic systems, we originally wrote our control software in C++ using the cross-platform wxWidgets library (we avoided Qt due to some licensing concerns), because we felt that we had to target Windows, Linux, and Mac platforms for our end users. This is what we shipped for over a year until I started tinkering with Cocoa.
Right away, the thing that most impressed me was how quickly you could develop using Cocoa. Eventually, we decided to drop support for Linux and Windows and rewrite our entire control applications in Cocoa. What had taken us years to put together in C++ required only three months to completely reimplement in Cocoa.
Aside from the "lowest common denominator" interface issues that others have pointed out, the rapid development allowed by Cocoa has become a competitive advantage for our company. Our software has advanced far more quickly since our conversion to Cocoa, and it has allowed us as a new company with one developer to pull even with 10-year-old competitors that have 20-man development teams. This appears to be a common story in the Mac development space, where you see a lot of small teams who are able to create products that compete with those of much larger companies.
As a final note, using Cocoa gives you the ability to stay on top of the new APIs Apple is continually rolling out. We're now working on a new control interface that will make heavy use of Core Animation, something that would be painful to deal with using Qt.
I'm currently developing both with QT (actually PyQT, but it makes no difference to your question) and native Cocoa app. For me it's no brainer, I'd chose Cocoa. It's really worth time to explore Cocoa in general, there are many great concepts within the Cocoa framework, and Objective-C 2.0 as well.
I'd use Qt if you want this to be a crossplatform application.
You can have a look at the QMacCocoaViewContainer class. It acts as some kind of wrapper for generic Cocoa views, so you can also have Cocoa elements which are not officially supported by Qt.
Of course this means learning a little about Cocoa and Objective C and how a Cocoa UI would need to look like. But if you already know Qt well and if it’s not like your application is all and only about the GUI this could be a good way to go.
And don’t forget about the QMacStyle::WidgetSizePolicy or you won’t understand why your tables come out so huge.
Obviously, the best option is to use a cross platform suite that supports native widgets.
With QT4 you can build your base user interface. Then just add native support for your specific target platform.
Sure, Cocoa has a lot of fancy stuff (and you can still use them trough QT4), but let me be clear. I see a lot of fancy Apps on the AppStore, pretty ones, but most of then are just crap, expensive.. what ever. I really missed my Kate text editor, my okular viewer, my krita drawing software... those are just better than the commercial and expensive alternatives and are free. so i just tweak the source code a little bit too have a REAL native and great experience.
What if i have to use a linux app on my main computer with is a mac os x? or windows? or whatever? only?
For example, why on earth i have to buy a expensive ,fancy but far less featured image editor software for my mac like pixelmator when i can use a full featured real image manipulation software like Gimp? YES Gimp is gtk2 based which is a pain on any platform, specially on Mac because is really ugly. Gimp should be ported to QT4. Inkscape should be ported to QT4 too, and it would feel so great.
Is so simple to do.. gosh!
http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.7-snapshot/demos-macmainwindow.html
Even you can add support for the the new native lion fullscreen feature, unified title and toolbar menus, etc
I , as a user, i really care about efficient, featured, good and cross platform apps, i don't really care about developer's convenience or laziness .
I do a lot of cross-platform development (Mac, Windows, Linux), and for some projects use Qt. It is a fine framework, and provides a rich class library. If you need to deploy on multiple platforms, cannot afford to spend the time/effort on platform-specific front-ends, or the "generic" support for each platform is sufficiently good, then use Qt.
However, Qt inevitably suffers in some ways from the lowest common denominator syndrome, and sometimes does not feel quite native enough. There are also certain features that are either difficult to support, or are simply not provided in the Qt libraries. So if you can afford the time and effort, or your app really demands the attention to detail and fit & finish, then developing separate front-ends may be worth it.
In either case, you ought to be writing your back-end (aka domain) code in a platform-neutral and front-end neutral manner. This way, the front-end is easily replaced, or modified between platforms.
You could always start with a Qt front-end and go for a quick time to market, then develop a native front-end down the line.
In practice, I've noticed that a Qt app on Windows looks most "native", while on Mac there are certain subtle telltale signs that make it look/feel not quite right. And Mac users tend to have much higher expectations when it comes to UI/UX!
Since posting this, i've been learning the Cocoa / Objective-C way, and have been quite impressed. Despite what I initially thought was quite a quirky syntax, Objc appears to be a very effective language for implementing UI code, and the XCode sugar - things like Core Data and bindings - make short work of all of the boring bits.
I spent a while with the QT examples and documentation before digging into cocoa, and tend to agree with what has been said above w.r.t being slightly behind the curve and less 'aqua-ish' - albeit from a fairly trivial inspection. If I absolutely had to be build a cross-platform app i'd probably use QT rather than trying to separate out the UI code, as it seems like it would provide close-enough visuals, but for mac only purposes, Cocoa seems like a definite win.
Thanks all for your responses, they've all been very helpful!
DO NOT use Qt for a Mac app. You will get no hardware acceleration for 2D rendering, and you will not be able to deliver ADA compliance.
Depending on what kind of apps you want to write, another contender is REALbasic now called Xojo.
The move from C++ is pretty easy (I have 15 years C++ experience) and the framework and IDE extremely productive. You have the added bonus of being able to deploy to Linux and Windows with trivial effort. Their framework compiles to native code and uses native widgets so you don't have an emulated look and feel.
The big reason for learning Cocoa and coding in Objective-C is if you want to hone your iPhone skills or are chasing a really fancy user experience. If you wanted to rival the cutting edge of WPF development then I'd recommend Cocoa.