![]() Repeating this again because this should be telling. ![]() > With my company, our users have always begged for an Mac OSX and iOS app. Wouldn't you replace valued team members who leave, in both cases? Or is this a concern that you won't be able to find developers willing to work with OSX and/or iOS tech? ![]() If your Windows team members all left, that project would be dead or out-of-sync too. We could contract, or hire for that specific purpose, but the moment that team member was gone the project would be dead and out of sync with the rest of the codebase. We never provided it, because we have zero-internal expertise with any of the technologies involved. There's a reason you see a lot less of that going on today it isn't because devs are frightened of learning a new language or framework. You might get a port of a game or app - but most times, you had to settle for something else, or buy a second system (ha! only if you had real money! I look back on the costs of those systems back then, and wonder how my parents ever managed it). In most cases, a game or app was only developed for one of those machines (usually the Apple IIe or the C=64, sometimes both - maybe an Atari too), but the other systems were all considered "second tier" by most developers. I lived and played in those times back in the "second gen" if you will of the microcomputer days - you had games and apps by different companies, and developers. Supporting and maintaining multiple codebases for multiple platforms can be debilitating for a company, let alone a single developer. Supporting and maintaining a single codebase for one platform is a monumental task for any company, let alone a single indie developer. Instead, that application would have to be developed for only one, maybe two of the "major" platforms (and guess which platform it wouldn't be developed for - that would be the platform that I like most). It might even be a massive cost to me as a single developer.īy developing a cross-platform app using a single set of easy-to-use tools, a large audience of users can be gained, that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive to support if native-only was the mantra. It's instead the massive costs to my employer. I can't speak for others, but for me, the "massive costs" isn't about having to learn another language or framework. > I think all these "massive cost" comments come from sheer ignorance. Those "devs" are frightened at the need to learn a new language and frameworks, overestimate the time required to learn those, look around them and only see likewise clueless "devs", frightened of changes, and extrapolate some comically high overestimation of cost and time, when in reality, a properly written software is much more accessible to join in and support than a web "app" with the contemporary "sexy" observer pattern nonsense splattered all over, coupled with a horrible, horrible dependency management system and a language/framework combo that requires multiple dependencies to perform the most trivial of array loop. I think all these "massive cost" comments come from sheer ignorance. Learning frameworks takes much longer, obviously, but with the wealth of information available out there these days (Stack Overflow, message boards, blogs, etc.), "hacking" on new frameworks is also quite easy. If you are an experienced developer, moving from a language to a language is a matter of hours to days, depending on paradigm changes. A language is, after all, means to use the frameworks. I think, only a special kind of "developers" is afraid of learning languages.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |