Related
I'm a developer in ActionScript and while I'm watching Haxe as a language to be used by me, since besides the resemblance ActionScript, still be possible to make applications with output to flash yet.
However I have a question about building AIR packages. When I search about building AIR applications with Haxe, the search does not bring satisfactory results.
I ask, after the codification and development of the code (in Haxe), how is it possible to transform what was built into an AIR package?
Thank you!
It isn't a very popular topic it seems. Anyhow, as far as I remember my experience building it some years ago, what you need would be:
If you need some air-specific APIs then you should write externs for them. There is this existing project, but it would need a bit of update as it was written for flash9, however, I believe it is doable in like 1 hour of work.
Compile to flash.
Write all the manifests you need for Air. (Sorry, don't remember what exactly it needs.)
Use this guides to package(also test and sign) your apps.
Note: If you want to go the same way you did before, you could compile haxe to as3 and be happy. However, I wouldn't recommend this method due to loosing speed and probable implications which may arrive.
I'm a .NET developer with some questions about a small Mac project coming up.
We are going to be creating a small program for Mac OSX. The software will need to have a simple UI (1 screen) and will need to consume a WCF web service.
Should we code on our Windows boxes or on Mac machines? We have a couple Mac Minis, but we mostly do Windows development.
What IDE/dev environment should we use? (Eclipse, Xcode, etc.)
How does Mac software deployment generally work?
...
No one has mentioned Java/Eclipse. Isn't that an option?
Here are two options:
Write in Objective-C, using Xcode on Macs
Write in C#, using Mono on Windows or on a Mac with SharpDevelop
The advantage of #1 is the resulting app will be much easier to deploy to others, but you might have trouble consuming the WCF service. It depends on what exact interface you are exposing and what the types of the parameters are.
The advantage of #2 is that you can use your C# skills. I don't know the state of WCF in Mono, and the GUI may not look native.
If you go with #1, the main issue will be using Objective-C. Since you are targeting the Mac, make sure you enable the Garbage Collector, or else you will have to also learn memory-management. If you use Xcode 4, it's similar in spirit to Visual Studio, although the details are different. For a simple project, following the tutorials will probably be enough -- I suspect the hard part will be interacting with WCF. To make your life easier, make the interface to the service extremely simple (simple parameter types and returns).
Your question is overly broad. You have two options:
When in Rome...: download Xcode, look at example apps, read Apple's documentation, find some tutorials, and learn Mac app development the usual way.
The Devil You Know...: look into stuff like the Mono project that will let you write a Mac app in C#, so you can use your existing libraries and don't have to learn Objective-C.
Which is better depends on your needs. If you just want to get a small app done and don't have a lot of time/money, I'd go with #2. If you're concerned about quality (compatibility libraries always have their quirks), I'd go with #1. My gut says #2 is better for you.
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.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have questions on true cross platform development and if it is possible to use ONE platform to develop software.
I have a few applications that I write that work on OS X, Windows and Linux. They all use native platform toolkits with some shared source across platforms. I have to boot to each platform, checkout, compile, etc.
I have in the past tried GUI toolkits like QT (I bought a commercial license for Win, mac, Linus, but very expensive and paying it year after year became hard). I have tried WxWidgets, development moves slow.
So what I am thinking about is there a way to run a single platform and cross compile for other platforms so I can build my products from a single platform.
I favor OS X, is there a way to write apps for OS X, Windows, Linux from OS X where I just need to test on each platform respectively. I have found information on cross compilers, stub compiling, etc, etc.
Does anyone have any thoughts? Is this even possible? Would someone make a killing creating such a beast?
In my company, we use the Mozilla Framework to develop cross platform dictionary products. These applications are based on the Gecko/Necko Browser and most of the development is done via Javascript, HTML, CSS, XSL, XUL,... Of course, our homebrew Search engine had to be cross compiled to the three platforms (with some other code which was first done in JS and then ported to moz' C++ for speed reasons).
In the end, we have a reasonnably cross-platform solution: Our developers mostly work like power web-developers (think client and server side at the same time). Because the Gecko is the same on the three platform, we know it will predictably look and behave the same way (except when there are bugs, but the platform is now quite mature on this point of view).
Our R&D knows how to port slow javascript code to rather quick portable C++ code (you do Mozilla code using the NSPR library, a cross-platform lib). Testing has always to be done on the three platform however, although with time and experience, you get to know what will break where (Font support, Audio support, Flash Support)...
Today, you should probably have a look at XULRunner which is really the Mozilla without any real browser interface (in 2002, we had to dismantle the Mozilla Browser to repaint it in our first product colour). Of course, it works well for simple applications but if you wish to make OpenGL, 3D Audio and other nifty things, XULRunner will appear too limited.
I believe Blizzard has some cross-platform framework for that kind of thing... :)
Good luck!
Pierre.
Trying to develop applications on a single platform that will be used on many platforms isn't a good approach. At best you'll make applications which feel alien to users of the platforms that you didn't develop for.
More likely, you'll run into subtle compatibility problems in areas which you never forsaw. Java is probably the best way to go if you want to go down this route. Cross compiling will lead to autogenerated code that will be a nightmare to debug and maintain.
Certainly, you may be able to use tools for porting in some cases, but I don't think that this is a problem that you can just provide an automated solution for in general.
Well, to be honest, the only guaranteed way to build an app to be cross platform in one go is to use Java, but it requires a rather large runtime to be installed first.
However, if that's not an option, I would recommend keeping an eye on recent developments in Qt - it is now available (or should be soon) under the LGPL, which presumably means you don't need to pay for it anymore. Using GCC with Qt, I've found, works perfectly when cross-compiling on different platforms, as long as you only use Qt's classes/code/objects and make sure that any non-Qt code you create or use is capable of being compiled cross-platform.
You don't mention any specific programming language (but I'm guessing C or C++ because of the GUI toolkits), so it's kinda hard to give a good answer to what you are actually asking.
If you want "true" cross platform, I would first consider if it is possible to solve your problem using a language that is less platform bound. Python, Java and plenty of others allow you to write on one platform, and run on many.
If you still want to use C/C++, GCC gives you the option of cross-compiling, and if you combine that with QT (which will soon be available under the LGPL) you should be able to get something working.
Java has tried to do the write once, run anywhere. It works well in some situations, but there are too many "unique" things in an OS. GCC provided the ability to cross-compile applications, but you run into the same sort of problems. The code will just have better performance. The RIA approach seems to work, but it doesn't feel like a native application.
Even using a cross platform GUI toolkit will not remove all your cross platform problems. There's more to an app than GUI, after all. Cross compiling will never be able to catch all the issues that a native build will catch, either. If you're going to support multiple platforms, you're going to have to at least test on each platform. But hopefully you can perform native builds with all warnings turned on, in addition to testing.
In the past few months, I found a few great videos exploring this topic of cross platform development. I hope you find them useful as well.
QTCreator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYiPvM7ZRHA&feature=channel
FlexBuilder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O_xDXRsh3Y&feature=channel
Mono / MonoDevelop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6VG_Z0aRek
I've personally had success using Silverlight / MacOS X
http://screencast.com/t/if8xenkt
RealBasic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWipoBeKSRk
For Cross Platform Development you can use Phone Gap, Appcelerator (Titanium), Corona... This all provides a framework based on JavaScript and finally able to run on different platforms. What I am using is Titanium for Mobile Development which allows us to develop applications with Native Codes.... (which is very good advantage). Phone Gap is giving a web app which is not native in general... This softwares are used for development of cross platform supports... with support on Windows, Linux and Mac OS.
Based upon my personal experience, I believe you should adopt Java: you will avoid many headaches.
You develop in whatever platform you like and you deploy in all other platforms with no need of compiling for each target platform, as you mentioned.
For example, I develop under linux, I hit "compile" only once and the resulting file is ready to be run anywhere (windows, mac, solaris, z/OS, you name it). A double click will run it on any platform (Java runtime must me installed, but most users have it installed already and if not, it's a matter of downloading, installing, "Next>", "Next>", "OK").
If you choose the "Java Web Start" deployment method, it gets even easier: the user just clicks the launch button on a webpage and the application runs (if the proper JVM is installed according to what specified in the JNLP descriptor) or the user gets redirected to the Java download page (if no suitable JVM is found).
GUI development (with Swing toolkit) is easy and powerful, especially if you use the right tool (i.e. Netbeans IDE).
I'm looking at rewriting an eMbedded Visual Basic app I wrote years ago. I'm unsatisified with it because of various problems clients keep having with it now and then over the years, mostly along the lines of the app not loading anymore because a required dll/activex control has gone missing! This is so frustrating and naturally difficult to debug when a client is using it far away. In alot of cases reinstalling the app doesn't fix the problem.
My preference would be to rewrite it in C# since I'm comfortable with C# and DotNet, but I'm also open to other platforms like blackberry or iTouch/iPhone so long as the platform can support maps and GPS. I'd start rewriting it in C# now but I can't be sure that I won't have the same problems in .net.
Has anyone else had similar problems with eVB apps which have gone away/persisted when moving to CF DotNet? Or would you suggest a different platform again?
Edit: Note that I wish to move away from eVB anyway, but if I move to CF DotNet I want to make sure I won't have the same missing dll/control problems.
I recommend .NET CF strongly, especially if you already know C# and .NET. Mono has been ported to the iPhone, so it is possible to write apps that will run on Windows Mobile and the iPhone. No Mono for Blackberry (yet, if ever), so that's a definite limitation. I personally can't stand Blackberries (I have both a Blackberry and a WM smartphone and the Blackberry makes me want to hang myself), but they do have a huge user base.
You should have migrated away from eVB years ago, but that's water under the bridge. If you want to continue targeting Windows CE/ Windows Mobile I'd recommend going to the CF - language is irrelevant, use what you're comfortable with.
There's no way to guarantee that whatever your "missing DLL" problem is won't happen again, since we have no idea what DLL went missing. If it was a 3rd party control, then you're at the mercy of the market. If the provider survives, it's likely their control will.
If you want to target iPhone/Blackberry then Java is more likely to be your language of choice - the tools I'm not as familiar with. Eclipse for Blackberry - iPhone may have their own tool.
As for Silverlight, you might look at it, but so far it's just way too slow to be a viable platform, at least on any WinMo device I've ever seen. We've delevered many, many CF apps for all sorts of verticals and have never had any usability problems (though we've been doing it a long time and know every limitation and what we should and should not be trying).
I suggest you take it one step further and look at Silverlight. One of the premises is that it's a more long-term-stable, portable, lightweight download and install, and it hasn't gotten krufty yet.
I think it has the potential to be the next VB for embedded. One of the difficulties with CF is that I've found it to be an insufficient subset of the real thing.
Another option is NS Basic/CE. It's highly compatible with eVB, so you will be able to keep most if not all of your code. The product has been continually updated so it runs on current devices.
The installer that NS Basic/CE creates includes all the dll files your program requires, so they will be included on installation.