Purpose – To examine if there is any difference regarding performance between the two frameworks Ionic and React Native to ease decisions which one to use when developing mobile applications. Method – A comparative study with hypothesis based on earlier studies are tested with different experiments. Findings – Ionic is performing faster in the majority of the experiments, but at the same time its CPU and memory usage is higher. The results also show that React Native is struggling with larger data-sets. Implications – The study is contributing to a wider knowledge about cross-platform frameworks performance, and therefore facilitates the choice on which framework is more preferable to use. Limitations – The study only includes Ionic and React Native, and no conclusions can therefore be applied to any other cross-platform frameworks. The results are not generalizable to cross- platform native vs cross-platform hybrid, or Android vs IOS / Syfte – Studiens syfte var att undersöka om det är någon skillnad prestandamässigt mellan ramverken Ionic och React Native för att utveckla ett beslutsunderlag och underlätta val av ramverk vid utveckling av applikationer. Metod – En jämförande studie som införskaffat en teoretisk bakgrund genom en litteraturstudie, och sedan framställt hypoteser som testats genom olika experiment. Resultat – Studiens resultat visade att Ionic presterade snabbare än React Native i majoriteten av experimenten, samtidigt som CPU och minnesanvändningen var högre. Resultaten beror antagligen på hur ramverken använder sig av olika tekniker som bland annat DOM och virtuell DOM för att rendera saker på skärmen. Resultaten visar också att React Native har stora problem att rendera större datamängder då applikationen låser sig fram till dess att den lyckats rendera allt. Implikationer – Studien bidrar till att bredda kunskapsbasen och underlätta vid val mellan olika ramverk för utveckling av cross-platform applikationer. Begränsningar – Studien avhandlar bara React Native och Ionic som ramverk, inga slutsatser kan dras för skillnader mellan cross-platform native och cross-platform hybrid. Applikationerna är byggda utan tidigare erfarenhet utav ramverken.

Ces travaux de thèse visent à diminuer le coût de développement des applications mobilespour smartphones Android, iOS, etc. Les applications mobiles sont de plus en plus complexes. Auparavant, une application mobile se contentait d’afficher des données provenant du web. Maintenant, en plus de cela, elles communiquent avec le monde extérieur. Par exemple, certaines applications communiquent avec des montres, avec des écrans de télévision etc. D’autres permettent le scan de codes barres ou encore l’interaction avec des objets réels à travers la réalité augmentée. Les serveurs peuvent envoyer des notifications aux applications, etc. Une application mobile est devenue un logiciel à part entière. Cependant, pour toucher un maximum d’utilisateurs de smartphones, les applications mobiles doivent être conçues, implémentées et déployées sur tous les smartphones possibles. Avec la multiplication des configurations matérielles différentes ainsi que la multiplication des systèmes d’exploitation mobiles, cette tâche devient de plus en plus ardue. En effet, une application mobile doit souvent être réalisée une fois pour chaque plate-forme cible (Android, iOS, Windows Phone 8, etc.). Le temps et le coût de réalisation d’applications mobiles est donc multiplié par le nombre de plates-formes ciblées. Dans ces travaux, nous proposons de combiner le développement natif avec la programmation par composants. Pour ce faire, nous introduisons la notion de composants multiplateformes. Ce sont des composants qui peuvent être exécutés sur plusieurs plates-formes mobiles. Pour la représentation des composants, nous avons introduit la notion d’interface indépendante à n’importe quelle plate-forme mobile. Ainsi, l’intégration et l’assemblage se font d’une façon unique, que l’on soit dans un environnement de développement Android, iOS ou autre. Pour ce faire, nous avons spécifié un nouveau langage de programmation basé sur les annotations. Cette approche a été validée à travers le développement d’une application mobile pour Android et iOS avec notre solution. L’application implémentée a été réalisée en concordance avec les problématiques que rencontrent les entreprises de développement mobile et plus particulièrement Keyneosoft. Ensuite, nous avons comparé ces versions de l’application avec les versions développées nativement. Nous avons montré qu’avec notre solution nous diminuons le temps de développement d’au moins 30% sans aucune limitation pour les développeurs d’applications (même expérience utilisateur, même performance). Nous avons aussi comparé notre solution avec des produits disponibles sur le marché Phonegap, Titanium mobile et Xamarin. Nous en avons conclu que notre solutiton offrait le plus de possibilités sans aucune limitation. / In this thesis, we aim to decrease the development cost of applications for smartphones running Android, iOS, etc. Mobile applications are more and more complex. A few year ago, a mobile application was only design to display web content. Today, in addition, they are connected with the external world. For example, some applications are connected with watches, TVs, etc. Mobile applications became real softwares. However, in order to be visible by all smartphones users, mobile applications are designed, developed and deployed on every kind of smartphone. With the increase of the multiplicity of hardware configurations and the diversity of mobile operating systems, this task is becoming more and more laborious. Indeed, a mobile application is often implemented one time for each target platform (Android, iOS, Windows Phone 8, etc.). Therefore, the time and the cost for a mobile application implementation is multiplied by the number of target platforms. In this thesis, we propose to combine native development with the advantages of component-based software engineering. To do that, we have introduced the concept of multiplatform components. Those components are capable to be executed on any mobile platform. In order to describe components, we have introduced interfaces that are independent of any mobile platform. Thus, component integration and assembly are common on Android, iOS and others systems. To achieve that, we have specified a new programming language based on Annotations. We have validated this approach with the implementation of a real mobile application for Android and iOS. We have compared this application with the same application developed natively. Results show that with our solution, developers implement a multiplatform application 30% faster than native development. Moreover, our solution does not show any limitation for developers (same user experience, same performances). Finally, we have compared our solution with real products available on the software market: Phonegap, Titanium mobile and Xamarin. This comparison illustrates that our solution provides the best features and does not limit developers possibilities.

Smartphones have become indispensable in modern life, largely due to the vast array of apps that aim to simplify and enrich our daily experiences. Given the vast number of apps available, it's crucial to have a unique and user-friendly UI to stand out from the crowd. This thesis explores the processes of mobile application UI development, contrasting the traditional declarative programming approach with the Android toolkit Jetpack Compose and the use of a web based low-code tool, FlutterFlow, for cross-platform applications. The goal is to provide valuable insights for those seeking to develop competitive, modern UI. This is achieved by examining the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, focusing on their ability to create non-standard custom components, the scalability of the apps developed, and potential differences in UI responsiveness, animation smoothness, and overall fluidity. To address these questions, a case study was conducted where an application was developed using both approaches. In addition, a qualitative user survey was conducted to assess whether users could discern any difference between the two applications. The findings suggest that while users did not perceive a significant difference, Jetpack Compose outperformed in terms of app scalability and the creation of non-standard custom components. On the other hand, FlutterFlow proved advantageous in implementing standard functionalities and animations, as well as offering a considerably faster development time when only standard components were required. / Smartphones har blivit oumbärliga i det moderna livet, till stor del på grund av det stora utbudet av appar som syftar till att förenkla och berika våra dagliga upplevelser. Med tanke på det stora antalet tillgängliga appar är det avgörande att ha ett unikt och användarvänligt gränssnitt för att sticka ut från mängden. Syftet med denna avhandling är att jämföra processen vid utveckling av användargränssnitt för mobila applikationer, specifikt genom att kontrastera det traditionella tillvägagångssättet med deklarativ programmering med Jetpack Compose och användningen av ett lågkodverktyg, FlutterFlow, för cross-platform applikationer. Avsikten är att erbjuda värdefulla insikter för intressenter som strävar efter att utveckla moderna och konkurrenskraftiga applikationer. Detta mål uppnås genom att förtydliga fördelarna och nackdelarna med vardera tillvägagångssätt, särskilt när det gäller deras flexibilitet i att skapa icke-standard komponenter, skalbarheten hos de utvecklade applikationerna, och potentiella skillnader i responsivitet, smidighet och fluiditet mellan applikationen. För att besvara dessa frågor genomfördes en fallstudie där en applikation utvecklades med båda tillvägagångssätten. Dessutom genomfördes en kvalitativ användarundersökning för att bedöma om användarna kunde upptäcka skillnader mellan de två applikationerna. Resultaten tyder på att medan användarna inte uppfattade någon märkbar skillnad, visade Jetpack Compose vara överlägsen när det gäller applikationens skalbarhet och skapandet av icke-standard komponenter. Däremot uppvisade FlutterFlow en fördel i implementeringen av standard funktionaliteter och animationer, samt erbjuder betydligt snabbare utvecklingstid när applikationen endast kräver standardkomponenter.

This thesis is about the creation of a new game framework named Pix and a comparison between it and the game engine Godot. The purpose is to create a game framework that focuses on making the workflow streamlined for the pro- grammer and at the same time giving the programmer a lot of creative power. Pix uses C# as programming language which runs on the .NET Core platform. Pix is built with Entity Component System (ECS) design which means that the design is data-oriented and that it focuses on composition. Thus the ECS design brings with it a clear separation between logic and data. The ECS design also makes it easy to write multithreaded code and to serialize the game world state. The comparison against Godot shows clear differences between how you use them and the philosophy about how the users become familiar with them. The obvious difference between them is that the main time spent working with Godot will be in the graphical user interface. In Pix on the other hand you will only work in a text-editor or an IDE if you do not create your own editor. The coding in Godot is done primarily with the script language GDScript. It is made for creating common game functionality but can’t be used to extend the engine with new advanced functionality. Thus to integrate new more advanced features Godot will need to be recompiled. Being forced to recompile the engine to add new advanced features results in that extending the engine can both be time consuming and challenging. In Pix there is no difference between coding game functionality and extending the framework. This equality in Pix between coding game functionality and extending the framework brings with it that when you can make a game in Pix you can also extend the engine with more functionality. The differences results in that Godot is simpler to learn but also gives the regu- lar user less power. Pix is the opposite of that. I you look at the workflow of us- ing Pix and combine that with the technologies Pix is built upon you can see that Pix differentiates itself from the already existing alternatives. The work- flow Pix provides and the technologies it is built upon shows that Pix can be a good alternative for creating complex games that doesn't need the most ad- vanced graphical features. / Rapporten handlar om skapelsen av ett nytt spelramverk namngivet Pix som jämförs mot den existerande spelmotorn Godot. Syftet är att skapa ett spelram- verk som fokuserar på att göra arbetssättet smidigt för programmeraren samtidigt som det ger mycket kreativ makt till programmeraren. Pix använder C# som programmeringsspråk vilket körs på .NET Core plattformen. Det är upp- byggt med en Entity Component System (ECS) design vilket betyder att det är en dataorienterad design med ett fokus på komposition. Det medför en klar separation mellan logik och data. ECS designen medför också att serialisering samt använda sig av flera trådar blir väldigt enkelt. Jämförelsen mot spelmotorn Godot visar tydliga skillnader i hur man använder spelmotorn/spelramverket samt tydliga skillnader i filosofin kring hur en användare blir bekant med spelmotorn/spelramverket. De tydliga skillnader är hur större delen av arbetstiden i Godot spenderas i Godots grafiska gränssnitt medans Pix kan kontrolleras endast från kod om man inte skapar en editor själv. Programmering i Godot görs med skriptspråket GDScript. Det är gjort för att skapa vanlig spel funktionalitet och inte utöka spelmotorn med ny funktionalitet. Det betyder att hela motorn måste kompileras om för att lägga till mer avancerad funktionalitet vilket kan vara tidskrävande. I Pix är är det samma sak att programmera spel funktionalitet och utöka ramverket med ny funktionalitet. Det medför att så fort som man kan programmera ett spel i Pix kan man också utöka ramverket med mer funktionalitet. Det resulterar i att Godot är enklare att lära sig men samtidigt ger mindre makt till den vanlige användaren medans Pix är tvärtom. Kollar man på hur man använder sig av Pix samt de teknologierna Pix är uppbyggt med så kan man se att det skiljer sig från redan existerande alternativ. Det leder till att Pix kan vara ett gott alternativ för komplexa spel som inte kräver den mest avancerade grafiken.

No description available.

React Native has quickly become one of the most popular cross-platform frameworks for developing Android and iOS applications since it was first released by Facebook in 2015. In this study a proof of concept application is  developed and a set of features are evaluated with regard to performance efficiency. Results of measurements show that while React Native does perform worse than it's Android counterpart, it performs sufficiently well for building most applications with but can be more problematic for applications running heavier client-side logic.

This qualitative study of networks of entrepreneurs in the mobile technology industry in three ecosystems - Kathmandu, Nairobi and London - examines perceptions and attitudes of entrepreneurs related to their networking activities. The focus is on understanding the entrepreneurs' motivations for, and benefits and risks of networking, as well as the overall trends of development of the three ecosystems, which are very different from each other in terms of socioeconomic circumstances. The findings provide new insights into the link between the concept of a community of supportive peers and the acquisition of subjective resources, such as self-efficacy and legitimacy, while also supporting conclusions of earlier empirical and theoretical work linking networks with the acquisition of resources necessary for founding and building a new firm. A comparison of results across the three ecosystems uncovers a strong tendency towards institutional convergence of the three ecosystems based on a model inspired by the Silicon Valley experience. The mechanisms through which this is found to occur are mimesis and storytelling, motivated primarily by learning goals and the pursuit of legitimacy for entrepreneurial action in the mobile technology industry, as well as for the individual ventures. The overall finding emerging from the cases is that, despite significant differences, the three ecosystems are reliant on a shared pool of relevant information and knowledge, via the Internet and through personal and organizational connections. They resemble one another not only in terms of resources sought by entrepreneurs through their networks, but also in the ways entrepreneurs signal their purpose and value to their community, and in the way the describe their environment - through references to other entrepreneurship ecosystems. In the absence of an existing theoretical approach to analyzing convergence of diverse entrepreneurship ecosystems, the study proposes a framework based on DiMaggio and Powell's theory of institutional isomorphism, and integrating the works of Wiewel and Hunter, on legitimacy-building by association through networks, and Djelic, on the process of cross-national transfer, or export, of economic models. The type of isomorphism perceived is termed "aspirational," since it is found to occur in the context of pursuing a specific outcome previously achieved by the application of a particular institutional model. The difference between "aspirational isomorphism" and behaviours described by DiMaggio and Powell lies in the interpretation and adaptation of a model that can then be embedded in a nascent institutional environment (in this case, an entrepreneurial ecosystem). Rather than pure mimesis, aspirational isomorphism is a flexible and creative endeavor.

Social media is a vast, fluctuant domain that is difficult to grasp, overlook and explain. It is important in our daily lives as well as for organisations, such as traditional media. Traditional media is moving from analogue news propagation to propagating news online, where social media plays a significant role. This study contributes to the understanding of traditional media propagation in social media, through quantitative and network analysis of articles’ spread in social media. The study also contributes to refining social media network analysis methodology, from the perspective of traditional media propagation in social media. The study is conducted as a survey where web documents of social media posts were collected and analysed. The scope of the study were Swedish traditional media. Two analysis methods were used: a quantitative statistical analysis of the propagation of articles and a network analysis comparing the usefulness of two common network analysis metrics: indegree centrality and PageRank. The results show that an overall of 22,34% of traditional media articles in this study, were propagated in social media. The findings include what categories of articles are most propagated on different social media platforms. Different kinds of newspapers were also compared, and variances were found. Local press articles were more propagated on Facebook than on Twitter, in opposite to national press that were more propagated on Twitter than on Facebook. Indegree centrality was found to be the most useful metric for examining traditional media propagation amongst Swedish newspapers, when compared to PageRank. Lack of cross-platform research in social media is pointed at, since this study identifies a prominent need for evolving cross-platform social media research.

Today, there are many technologies available for developing cross-platform desktop apps. JavaFX is a software platform based on the Java language. It has a set of features that play a role in its success. On the other hand, Electron is a new framework that allows developers to employ web technologies (JavaScript, HTML, and CSS) to create cross-platform desktop applications. This thesis describes and compares between these two frameworks. The purpose of this report is to provide guidance in choosing the right technique for a particular cross-platform desktop application. Simple cross-platform desktop applications have been developed to compare both approaches as well as find the advantages and disadvantages. The results show that both apps satisfied the functional and nonfunctional requirements. Each framework architecture has its own advantage in building particular apps. Both frameworks have rich APIs as well as rich GUI components for building desktop apps. Electron has good documentation and community help, but it cannot be compared to JavaFX. The Electron app gives faster execution time and less memory usage than JavaFX app. However, the implementation of OOP concepts in Electron using JavaScript has some concerns in terms of encapsulation and inheritance.

No description available.