Codemagic vs. GNU Make

For companies currently investing in Flutter app deployment, the CD/CI automation that Codemagic brings to the table is a game-changer. Its decision-making process needs to consider all the architecture in place and in a common scenario with other programming frameworks, the initial investments can seem high. In this sense, Flutter will reduce programming staff needs as you can attack multiple target environments and platforms easily, and at the same time the effort to get it working on app stores is now improved thanks to the focus Codemagic gave to support the FLutter community in targeting this solution to ease the process. If you invest in Flutter, you have to invest in Codemagic.

Incentivized

GNU Make is a great tool for simple builds where language-specific options are not available, or to provide shortcuts for common commands (e.g., "make build" as shorthand for "go build ..." with a bunch of flags). However, it is complementary to other build systems. It does not replace them, which is perhaps one of its greatest strengths as well (works with existing ecosystem instead of trying to do everything). GMU Make it simple to get started with, and the philosophy of understanding how sources map to outputs, as well as the dependency graph, are beneficial.

Incentivized

• Flutter Apps
• Deploy to appstores
• Build test apps
• Easy to scale up once ready
• Has extra seats and team settings, through paid options, to support the prior.

Incentivized

• Performance and accuracy of cross-module dependencies.
• Simple to write and easy to understand.

Incentivized

• One more seat available for free accounts, for the first year or trial.
• Improved and simplified secrets management to avoid security leaks.

Incentivized

• No dependency management tools (but there are no cross-platform tools of this type anyway)
• Tedious to do cross-compilation (Debug & Release builds, 32- and 64-bit builds, x86/ARM builds)

Incentivized

I have used the Slack channel without any problems, and I have gained a lot of feedback from using this tool. I have also been invited to provide reviews for the app before but in an "informal" manner, and using their own channels via Slack.

Incentivized

In general, it is fair to say the support is sufficient although we do not deal with support directly. There are a lot of forum people chiming in with suggestions or recommendations of particular usage or issues we run into. Since it is open software, patch and fixes will be available from time to time. A lot of information is available in the web now for knowing GNU Make from learning, example, teaching, etc.

Incentivized

The steps to get Codemagic up and running are nothing compared to implementing a Jira solution and after using the CI/CD options it has enabled. For larger organizations that already have Jira, you might gain in the long run from features like automatic issue tracking and focused CI to remediate and test the apps. But if you are looking for true AGILE development, where you have teams that focus on value and need the CD process done easily, then Codemagic is a much better solution for emerging projects and companies to start.

Incentivized

I'm a full-stack developer that has used various build tools, including Maven, Gradle, and NPM/yarn. For our C projects, I also investigated CMake and Ninja, but they seemed more difficult to learn and more tedious to work with. GNU Make is a single binary that can be easily downloaded, even for Windows under MingW32, is straightforward to learn, and works pretty well despite its age.

Incentivized

• Reduce steps and time to deploy flutter apps
• Cost of build
• Invest in other areas of the architectural process to enhance the products built.

Incentivized

• Streamline the build based on a lot of existing component being done, reusable.
• Commonly understandable, therefore, rampup effort is small.

Incentivized