I appreciated the post. Communication like this help someone like me considering {N} to gain more confidence in project and community.
I wanted to offer some feedback, as someone who's recently been evaluating {N}.
I mainly considered two questions:
(1) Do I trust {N} as a platform?
(2) Does {N} have sufficient feature parity?
As for (1), eliciting trust, {N} offerings seem to be tangled together. As a contrast, with the approach Iconic has taken in their marketing/docs, it's easy to distinguish their component offering, from their native modules (capacitor), and web view provider (portals). One can see the value-added at multiple levels. Whereas with {N} the docs and resources tailor towards the framework integrations.
I find a layered presentation to be important since my choice of {N} over React Native would be for the control it would give. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's tailored towards that.
On that note, now that there is SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose support, one potential vector that would help differentiate {N} is providing better integration for devs embracing native platform development. Rather than having JS platform drive everything, I would prefer to hook up {N} myself and control how code is composed and generated. Sort of like a DYI framework, which {N} is perfectly suited for but I don't believe has fully embraced.
In regards to (2), having comparable feature set, main feature I would miss from React Native is Web support. Unless I'm fully embracing native platform development (which is why I think this would be a great stance for {N}), I would miss being able to share components across a web app too.
Other than that, it's just uncertainty as to how {N} packages compare to RN equivalents. Many RN packages are driven by established companies for use in production (Expo Modules, Reanimated, React Native Skia, etc), whereas the {N} ones (Canvas, Plugins, etc) give impression of being weekend projects. Which isn't a judgment, as these are community efforts, but this is a consideration when choosing a platform nonetheless. Even without fancy websites, better readme presentation would go a long way in showing status of a project [1].
So that's what I've evaluated thus far. Choices aside, The {N} community has been very welcoming and helpful, and I'm looking forward to seeing it grow and mature.
I appreciated the post. Communication like this help someone like me considering {N} to gain more confidence in project and community.
I wanted to offer some feedback, as someone who's recently been evaluating {N}.
I mainly considered two questions:
(1) Do I trust {N} as a platform?
(2) Does {N} have sufficient feature parity?
As for (1), eliciting trust, {N} offerings seem to be tangled together. As a contrast, with the approach Iconic has taken in their marketing/docs, it's easy to distinguish their component offering, from their native modules (capacitor), and web view provider (portals). One can see the value-added at multiple levels. Whereas with {N} the docs and resources tailor towards the framework integrations.
I find a layered presentation to be important since my choice of {N} over React Native would be for the control it would give. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's tailored towards that.
On that note, now that there is SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose support, one potential vector that would help differentiate {N} is providing better integration for devs embracing native platform development. Rather than having JS platform drive everything, I would prefer to hook up {N} myself and control how code is composed and generated. Sort of like a DYI framework, which {N} is perfectly suited for but I don't believe has fully embraced.
In regards to (2), having comparable feature set, main feature I would miss from React Native is Web support. Unless I'm fully embracing native platform development (which is why I think this would be a great stance for {N}), I would miss being able to share components across a web app too.
Other than that, it's just uncertainty as to how {N} packages compare to RN equivalents. Many RN packages are driven by established companies for use in production (Expo Modules, Reanimated, React Native Skia, etc), whereas the {N} ones (Canvas, Plugins, etc) give impression of being weekend projects. Which isn't a judgment, as these are community efforts, but this is a consideration when choosing a platform nonetheless. Even without fancy websites, better readme presentation would go a long way in showing status of a project [1].
So that's what I've evaluated thus far. Choices aside, The {N} community has been very welcoming and helpful, and I'm looking forward to seeing it grow and mature.
[1] Compare RN Skia to Nativescript Canvas; or in regards to Nativescript Plugins, compare how Solid Primitives presents status of each package.
Excellent feedback thank you!