Ionic vs. NativeScript vs. SALTO Systems

- Inexpensively and rapidly creating multi-device (Android, iPhone) native apps. - Quick ramp-up time allows for rapid development. - Open source tools can be used to develop. - Lightweight code-based can be easily shared and developed in a team environment. - Use of React, Vue, and angular leverages well-known coding and application design frameworks that are transportable.

Incentivized

I gotta be honest, after a PoC period, we choose to rewrite the whole application in a different cross-platform app. Our developers had to invest a lot of time and effort to debug a lot of plugin-related issues, which we needed to utilize the android mobile phone capabilities. QR reader, special visualizations, and fine-tuning were really hard and often resulted in writing native Android code instead of using the shared Angular code. In the end, we think that writing a standalone Android app and an Angular app would have been a better alternative, as the shared code base was so unreliable that it did not save us any time.

Incentivized

With the responsibility of securing a hospital, SALTO performs well. We have all but one public entrance completely secured by badge access only. This eliminates a lot of threats to our employees, our patients, and visitors to Republic County Hospital. SALTO helps provide peace of mind.

Incentivized

• Nice command line interface for repetitive development and deployment tasks.
• Realtime preview (in web browser) during development.
• Easy to update and keep current (open source) via command line.
• Provides nice set of mobile widgets for consistency across devices.

Incentivized

• True native app. The app uses native components and that is quite noticeable in the overall performance of the app. NativeScript is also awesome in the way we can access the native APIs, so we are never really constrained by the framework. If we need, we can just dive into the native APIs without leaving our environment and language (JS).
• Cross-platform. Builds for Android and iOS. It deals with the platforms differences very well.
• Support for Vue.js. Even though it is just a community effort, the NativeScript-Vue plugin is the best alternative to build native Apps with Vue.js. That was a major factor to go with NativeScript.

Incentivized

• Security
• Access tracking
• Data storage

Incentivized

• Slightly better documentation when it comes to command line build troubleshooting.
• Increased widget library (even though it's much improved today).
• Native chart/graphing widgets.

Incentivized

• The need to know the native Android and iOS APIs to access device hardware and other platform-specific functionality
• Not all user interface components are available for free
• NativeScript has no HTML and DOM, which requires some deep knowledge of different UI tools to be implemented instead

Incentivized

• I don't have any negative experiences with SALTO.
• I have no suggestions for improvement.
• I can't think of any recommendations for change.

Incentivized

The hybrid is ok but native is better for performance and the right use case I want to go for is the performance without dealing with too many development tools.

Incentivized

The community support is excellent.
They have a slack community as well as a discourse forum
forum.nativescript.org
Both of these offer community driven support.
The forum is more for a threaded discussion. The slack community is more for a quick talk.

Incentivized

Android Studio

• Busy
• Confusing
• Marginal IDE
• Large footprint
• Single device development

IonicFramework

• Lean, no IDE needed
• Web browser preview
• Multi-device development
• Scripting of build packages for deployment

Incentivized

Ionic Ionic is an excellent Angular-based framework for mobile, and it does give a lot of access to the native device api's. However, the technology is based on Cordova, which means the apps being built are just webviews, with html, css and JS all running on the UI thread, and potentially creating very slow experiences for users. NativeScript is a truly native solution, and so provides a faster user experience. ReactNative We evaluate ReactNative, and found it much the same as NativeScript. The main difference is that your JS is all written with React, while NativeScript lets you choose between normal JS, Angular, and Vue. For our team, Angular was the most appropriate choice.

Incentivized

• The ability to create a mobile app quickly by a single developer (saving $20K).
• Increased customer satisfaction.
• Avoids outsourcing costs of $10k-$20k.

Incentivized

• The poor quality of NativeScript documentation has the potential to weigh heavily on development timelines, budgets, and QA resources in a NEGATIVE manner.
• The poor interoperability of NativeScript plugins can significantly increase development time.
• The need to seek out professional instruction to learn how to use NativeScript effectively may become a burden on your budget.
• The number of breaking changes between versions of NativeScript, may cause your development efforts to lag further behind the most recent releases of NativeScript and your other chosen environments than you are accustomed to.
• NativeScript still does not support the latest major version of Angular. Any significant changes to the other environment components of your systems may hold you back even further while NativeScript plays catch-up.

• N/A
• N/A
• N/A

Incentivized