Mobile Architecture Comparison
1 like•1,407 views
The document discusses various mobile architectures, focusing on Objective-C as the traditional Apple solution, and Swift as its more modern and user-friendly successor. It also covers React Native, a Facebook initiative for cross-platform development, and RubyMotion, which allows Ruby to be compiled to Objective-C while being less popular. Each framework has distinct characteristics, advantages, and community support.
Mobile Architecture Comparison
- 2. State of the World • Objective-C - Around since the beginning • Swift - Apple’s official replacement for Objective-C • React Native - Facebook’s port of React to native device development • RubyMotion - Commercial project that compiles Ruby to Objective-C
- 3. Objective-C • Official Apple solution • What our current app is written in • Constitutes the majority of apps currently written in the store • Steep learning curve
- 4. Swift • Official Apple solution • Objective-C’s successor • Much easier to work with, faster • Large (unofficial) repository of components (Cocoapods) • Choice of iOS specialists the world over
- 5. React Native • Facebook’s latest project • Web views as performant as native components (with native bindings) • Very young (v 0.12 at time of writing) • Write once, deploy everywhere
- 6. RubyMotion • Write in Ruby, compile to Objective-C • Less popular than the official solutions, but with an active community • Supports InterfaceBuilder via gem • Can also leverage Cocoapods • Cross-platform, but only at the model layer • Commercial software ($199/person/year)