miun.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Native versus non native: A comparison of React Native and Angular NativeScript to native mobile applicationsParallelism in Node.js applications
Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Information Systems and Technology.
2017 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

The traditional or the native way to develop mobile applications is to use Java for Android and Objective-c or Swift for iOS. The native way is favored by many since the code and the functionality is optimized for the platform. An- other way to develop mobile applications is to do it the non-native way, with a programming language or technique not made for the platform. This approach has for long been frowned upon due the limited hardware access and perfor- mance loss. React Native and NativeScript offers mobile application develop- ment in a non-native way said full access to the native platforms API using JavaScript all from a single code base. The aim of this thesis has been to de- velop and compare four proof of concept applications of which two are devel- oped natively for Android and iOS and the other are developed using the non- native React Native and NativeScript. The comparison is based on three as- pects: accessing the device’s native hardware and APIs based on what the com- pany Dewire requires from mobile applications, the performance difference on the respective platform and code reusability cross platform. There is no big dif- ference between React Native and NativeScript when comparing native access and everything that was accessible on the native implementation was accessible on the non-native implementation. Based on the performance measurements, React Native falls behind NativeScript. NativeScript handles long lists better than React Native. Lastly a discussion is presented regarding code reusability when developing non-native applications along with some experienced best practices when doing so.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. , 75 p.
Keyword [en]
Mobile Application, React Native, NativeScript, Android, iOS
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:miun:diva-31018Local ID: DT-V17-G3-020OAI: oai:DiVA.org:miun-31018DiVA: diva2:1115590
Subject / course
Computer Engineering DT1
Educational program
Computer Science TDATG 180 higher education credits
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2017-06-27 Created: 2017-06-27 Last updated: 2017-06-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1507 kB)14 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1507 kBChecksum SHA-512
4049f410d876db00468c035be777a7c32adb065c5ccdad11e78728bb3026d5e3080c4ac83f51b38c644c45e4274a6b763edc9753accd129e46adb6be9a5e5338
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lawler Karvonen, Timothy
By organisation
Department of Information Systems and Technology
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 14 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 21 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf