Question by Nicholas Cristella: Why is there no practical visual Mobile development software?
I have looked into several different mobile SDK’s for development of Palm, Android, and Windows mobile devices. Maybe I’m missing a user interface but so far all I can seem to find is data entry rather than graphical user interface. In intermediate school I had courses on web development. What we were taught , this is around 98, is not what I’m seeing. What I believe would be here I do not see. How we were taught was there would be graphical input such as a more dynamic paint, maybe closer to Adobe flash. As we made simple connections the coding would appear on the right and we would be able to enter the coding in advanced mode edits small details.
I could more than likely develop better software using a more advance paint format. Editing, shapes and inserting transitions like one does in powerpoint. As I believe it would graphics could be altered such as shape,size, color by a graphical interface. I am seeing this is in some context. Though I believe the problem is the current development software expects the developer to insert to much of the phone functions. Basic functions of the phones applications need to run on its own with custom editing only from page to page and button to button. Having to connect each service makes it overwhelming for the simplest application. It makes no grounds for starting. Like a webpage I do not expect to have to code the function of a hyper link and now that is 2010 I don’t believe I should have to code too much of anything. Rather place what I want on the board, place it in order, connect each page, button and design function through already developed tools.
I know this kind of developer software exist, if anyone know or has any suggestions please let me know.
Thank you for the great answers. However, I kindly disagree. If the developers of the phones OS create usable user interfaces with pre-developed customizable objects the code would then be inserted and optimized prior to being placed on the phone.
Basic application building needs to be available as more complex developers are created from experience basic user skills. That being said, even an application such as Pandora could easily been seen as basic if the developers allow it to be. A few transitions, a few feeds, custom transparency, as well as as editing features seen in adobe CS5. These feature aren’t anymore complicated then a powerpoint slide and a streaming network and server space. Now Pandora is unique with its genome project and that why it is excellent. Though the application is nice most would consider the coding nice but basic. I own a Palm Pre, and has an android device. Other than gaming most would say most applications aren’t complex unless your building…
an application from the ground up. Which we do not want developers to continuously do. There is no progression and I believe we kind of have that now. Progression fully dictated by SDK and one constantly has to build like he was working with windows 2000 every time an SDK comes out. This method is holding up progression across the board. If a person can make a power point presentation that should be able to discover most of developing for this companies at a good level. Now of course gaming and advance coding are for the big guys, like they always have. It seems they promised bad developers a way around facing the badness, and good developers making good applications but waiting for others to catch-up and the end user is thinking its neat because we didn’t have it before though again most of web development has halted for users. Its like the developer community is making sure the guy making 40k making crap stays put. All I know is my company accommodates all of you and your company….
should do the same.
Having to code each service and scene transition is ridiculous and most of the priorities are intentional to be overly complicated. Sure it might make you seems smart because you know some bs crap way to create a loop no one else can understand, but that loop should just happen with a development tool. What ever happened to you complete the task, and the programming checks for any errors that don’t connect the intention? Even if thats too far at this time, coding doesn’t need to be blocked to work. It just has to connect to what the end user wants it to do.
I hope you are hearing my call. These developers that create ESPN applications and neat in game depictions from network feeds and in game coverage. Their from the basic user who used advanced tools. Not the coding major who complicates enough to make sure that guy doesn’t exist. They can both exist and you will all get paid.
Lastly, most advance creation comes from the higher end of companies, Where its a small company with little higher end or a large company with allot of it. Another words you put them out there and ESPN’s website comes to mind with in-game pitch by pitch location. Now this is over seen by most, but to most, if you take an application and add the scores and create links and formating for each team, basic information you can get off the website, but then insert the pitch by pitch locator someone has their own application. An application that otherwise wouldn’t exist. The reason it isn’t occurring, again, is because basic foundation for an application is made un-usable. I just can’t get over the fact it doesn’t exist. It seems so basic, practical, and essential to creation. Right click insert text connect page. Pull information from http://… format/centered font
image feeds, set refresh rate. This can all be inserted in to a UI. Again nothing more than a custom designed powerpoint, word, and paint with web design interface and advance services.
What I just came to realize is the issue. The applications are being based off the users intent rather then designing the application , testing it in hand, and then applying features that accommodate the intent. Blackberry is excellent at understanding this, though their not a monopoly on the insight. Its an easy assumption that the user wants every feature possible and the application to work in anyway it can under any circumstance. It cant always happen perfectly but making sure that is the goal will create better application design. I had to copy an E-mail from outlook when my trial ran out. I had to flip back and forth as the wording was delegate. I was about to throw the PC. Doing that with application kills the end user result. Deep down developers don’t want to create cross directional
integration because the development tools don’t allow it, it isn’t that the same result couldn’t occur under normal circumstances. They for some reason let some person design who shouldn’t be designing. Maybe to see how angry we all get when guy number 2 or 3 creates instead of number 1. Well all the number 1’s who aren’t creating development tools are pissed.
Monkey rolls boys, its all about the monkey rolls. The riddle is the key to our success.
Another good answer, (Wamsie) My concern with Microsoft is their slow but when they get moving they do mostly what I want them to do, but then I feel bad and let you make all money. I’m kidding.
With microsoft they make a good user interface phones and leave out all real practical features or create practical features and no user interface. I hope you are correct though, but from what you have written there is still real concern. It sounds that you ,like many others, do not believe a graphic user interface will produce the same code as the raw code created. It is slightly advance input but still rather basic. No matter what user does size, shape, dimensions, transparency, interaction the code simply adjusts to what the user has done. It then insert the code in a readable format. I do not want all user interface like power point or all code. Bill Gates created it 98 and I want it again. There is a balance between accessible code and the graphic code UI…
When one chooses a color in paint code is generated. This is no different, to the most advanced task. I’m looking and thinking about how advanced I can see an application within reason within the next ten years relative to what we currently have and even then the most advance current applications for devices do not intend to place us where we need to be. Again it all stem from the basic user. If intelligent an business-man like myself can’t jump on and make a neat application or even see how I could in the future than the whole market is off and it could place us far behind for some time. We are really talking about accessibility. The access to learn and create and while we have created more resources over all it just doesn’t make sense. Again, the industry is working to slow to make the substance for neccessary transitional growth. There’s overall too little being done in the middle and at the top. Really we can even see this in facebook. Its a great idea but it was never suppose to..
seem like a technology leader. Its a great idea to connect people. It isn’t the lead for consumer technology though its been boasted as such. Too many people are talking about tagging pictures, as a revolutionary measure, I just heard this the other day, but its goes across the board. No-ones even suppose to mention creations of that nature. Sorry zach no pat on the back, but your worth 10 billion+ I’m sure you’ll get over it. Getting caught on the small details that make things great holds progress. Yes, they make it great, but if you want it to continue to be great we can’t mention these features as revolutionary ideas. Maybe a footnote from the quaint fella in the background to give some input on in the real factors that made facebook great, but wait until we die. My approach to compliments has always been the same, they are nothing more to cut those who can achieve more short of their ultimate goals early. It is unfortunate, some can call it rude, but this is a truth I assure.
To those who understand, There is a slight plague around lately and it seems to always exist somewhere. The mind set of, we didn’t have this before so the bare essential or average is good. When we are talking about a multi-billion dollar market and devices that define our technological standing it isn’t alright to settle for these conditions and products. If it isn’t happening in these devices it isn’t happening anywhere. The processing power is here , the technology is capable. All we need is real development. If an investor give me a million to invest and I return 20% in a year. That isn’t ok when I know I’m capable of producing 1200%. When my father gave me a football to throw it wasn’t ok to just play around with it or toss it, That motherfucker had to be thrown, thrown perfect everytime or don’t touch it, if you want to touch it again think about it all day. Texas Instruments has released a series of 1.2+ Ghz mobile processors and I’m sure there will be other companies to follow
. The technology is here and I’m hungry. My suggestion is you don’t screw this generation up. Sony Standard has dropped a long standing standard with the premature release of the PS3 slim. Those who know, know better. Make it work and make it work for everyone. That my company’s standard and my company is America.
Answer by D
Phones are not standardized nearly enough for a development environment like you describe. Also, phones have limited space, memory, and resources, and large blocks of pre-built code are not efficient. That approach is fine on a desktop PC, but would create very clunky apps in a phone environment.
Add your own answer in the comments!