Its far from trivial to change an entire corporate culture on a dime.
You can say that, but when it's a response to the fact that Microsoft did that EXACT THING on the the scale in which they did it your statement doesn't hold any water. Go back in time and walk onto the Microsoft campus in Seattle and tell anyone that will listen in say 1995, 1999, 2001, 2007, or 2012 that Windows licensing is a dead end and see if you don't get lumped in with the loonies talking about the end of the world.
To say that Google can't do it is more an indictment of Google's leadership as opposed to the enormity of the task. To thinking a company with a 934 billion dollar market cap (Alphabet) can't figure out how to do enterprise software support if it wanted to, what a joke.
Agreed, seeing the run thru my mind kept going back to the "keyboard feel", for lack of how better to describe it, from playing it and the muscle memories associated. I was 17 when I was playing this game, there are other oddly specific memories associated with the game/time too, cranking Pearl Jam or Pantera while playing it and annoying the shit out of my parents... good times.
That seems like it's going to be a tough sell seeing as it uses Dart instead of JS when JS devs already have React Native, NativeScript, Titanium and Cordova to choose from. But I'm a firm believer in a rising tide lifts all ships, so bring it on Google!
the key is to know in detail the limitations of this approach
There's the rub. If you don't know anything about the native platform then you "don't know what you don't know". The NativeScript demo shows how to pull in a native ObjC function (a string related method I think), but if you start with no background in the native libraries how would you even know when you could be leveraging a native library function instead of trying to recreate a sub-optimal approximation in JS. But if you have the foundation and know the native platform, why jump ship to JS at all? And then I'm right back where I started :)
Fair enough. But even Chrome missing from iOS is mostly just an annoyance to tech types. Nobody is trading in their iPhone for a Nexus just to get Chrome, it's not the same as when Instagram was iOS only.
I don't know about React Native, but Telerik's open source project NativeScript promises to always have 0 day support of all native platform features since it's reflecting over the native platform's libraries to expose to its own API.
React Native and NativeScript seem to have all the upside of Cordova (transference of web dev skills to native platforms) with none of the downsides (lag in new OS feature implementation, webview wrapped apps), I wonder if Cordova's days of relevance are numbered.
I could be wrong but I am pretty sure I am typing this response in Chrome on a Windows box right now, so maybe not the best example of an Android only app.
Apple probably doesn't concern itself with any developers that don't want to be on their platform. In fact they probably find the notion so inconceivable that they wouldn't see any value in that developer's app.
Are there any "unicorn" apps that are Android only and intend to stay that way?
Question for everybody doing some sort of cross platform mobile dev.
How common is it to have NO experience with a platform's native libraries? In other words you didn't go from ObjC or Java to React Native/Cordova/Xamarin to try and re-use code but because you know JS or C# and weren't concerned about learning the native platform.
For any that started out with no native platform knowledge did you start to dip into it as you got more experience with the cross platform tool and started bumping up against any potential limitations?
I've been flirting with Swift when I have some (rare) downtime, to get a foundation, but maybe that's not even necessary anymore given the effort companies like Facebook/Xamarin/Telerik* are putting into abstracting away the native platforms.
[*] I intentionally left Cordova off that list as "native" native and "phonegap" native are two different things.
You can say that, but when it's a response to the fact that Microsoft did that EXACT THING on the the scale in which they did it your statement doesn't hold any water. Go back in time and walk onto the Microsoft campus in Seattle and tell anyone that will listen in say 1995, 1999, 2001, 2007, or 2012 that Windows licensing is a dead end and see if you don't get lumped in with the loonies talking about the end of the world.
To say that Google can't do it is more an indictment of Google's leadership as opposed to the enormity of the task. To thinking a company with a 934 billion dollar market cap (Alphabet) can't figure out how to do enterprise software support if it wanted to, what a joke.
Edit: spelling.