Unfortunately Android devices have much
greater variance in performance and tend to trail significantly behind iOS.
We were able to get our app running fairly quickly,
but the performance — specifically on touch events was not at an acceptable level even on higher end devices.
In addition at that early stage there was still a lot missing in the React Native Android feature-set that would
have made getting our prototype to production level more time consuming than our iOS effort.
This was posted on the 7th June admittedly. Does this still hold true? path.addLineTo(childViewTopLeftPoint)
path.addCurveTo(childViewTopRightPoint, withControlPoint1: arbitrary1Point, andControlPoint2: arbitrary2Point)
path.addLine(toPoint: childViewTopLeftPoint)
path.addCurve(toPoint: childViewTopRightPoint, withControlPoint1: arbitrary1Point, andControlPoint2: arbitrary2Point)
I feel the second version here allows me to bypass obtaining the type information "..Point" from the variable name when reading. addArcWithCenter(center: CGPoint, radius: CGFloat, startAngle: CGFloat, endAngle: CGFloat, clockwise: Bool)
You'd perhaps think of addArcWith(center: CGPoint), but then you'd need to have 'center' in the variable name to convey meaning. Keeping addArcWithCenter maintains obj-c status quo. addArc(withCenter: CGPoint) is more Swifty, but you may have repetition if your variable is named centerPoint, or similar. I have a feeling it would be kept as is. path.addLineToPoint(CGPoint(x: 100, y: 0))
-- to --
path.addLineTo(CGPoint(x: 100, y: 0))
I've been doing it as so: path.addLine(toPoint: CGPoint(x: 100, y: 0))
...requiring the "toPoint", which can swapped out true method overloading style: path.addLine(toArc:...)
In your internal method implementation, Swift allows you to replace the external method name with an internal one, so that it's still nice to work with: func addLine(toPoint point: CGPoint) {
...
}
I personally think it's a lot more readable. Otherwise the first argument has to have a really descriptive class name (recommended for sure, but often not the case).
This is just one data point, but I wasn't impressed.