|
|
|
|
|
|
by natenthe
1892 days ago
|
|
|
This post is on point. I spent a good amount of time working on multiple NativeScript apps (NS with Angular and NS with Vue) and can attest that the documentation is not good enough and that there are serious bugs that are pointed out and never fixed or addressed. I will say that open-source is a good thing to do and that they are not solving an easy problem - developing native mobile apps with multiple JS frameworks like Angular and Vue. Good on them for the effort. On top of that, there is definitely a market need for an Angular / Vue / JS to native app library for people that don't want to use React-Native for whatever reason. However, with that said...marketing their software as production ready, easy-to-use, and working out of the box while it being the exact opposite is harmful to the companies and developers that sink serious time and effort into building with NS. There needs to be more awareness like this blog post about how people should stay away from NS because of the issues mentioned. That is not being negative - it is being ethical and doing the right thing for the companies and developers that would end up having broken apps and serious sunken costs into platform that doesn't live up to what it says it does. I have many Github issues that were acknowledged as bugs but never addressed or fixed. I even offered a workaround that people are probably still using to this day because they never fixed certain bugs and docs. I haven't really interacted with the NS people too much besides on a few issues that weren't answered, so I can't comment on their attitude, but I can attest that everything else the OP is saying is true about NS not being a good solution. NS isn't soo terrible where nothing ever works. I believe the apps I worked on are still running in production. But, I'll put it this way - everyone learned from the experience that using NS is definitely not a good idea to use for developing mobile apps. |
|
|
I stuck my nose into NativeScript years ago and turned right around because of the disconcertingly large gap between the slick experience promised by the project web site and the rough edges reported by people trying to use it.
Presenting your project as a polished solution when it still has a ton of rough edges is not a social norm, an emotional necessity, a human right, a signal of scrappy ambition, or "just what people do." It's a deception that can cause harm. Normally people are not within their rights to demand solutions from open-source projects, but it's fair to ask them to live up to their marketing. They could fix this by rewriting their marketing to better reflect the state of the project, so they attract the right users for the current level of maturity.