codename one

[invalidname]

Objective-C development is 99USD per year.
You can call native code (Objective-C) in Codename One although I haven't tried that myself.

We can get into a religious debate over whether using a tool or Objective-C is better, I prefer an abstraction layer but that's just me. I think it lets me update faster and support my customers better. I'm also a Java developer so for me Codename One is superior.

 

[[)roi(]]

I did not know about the $849 codenameone costs.

As a developer I would learn objective c. Ios will not disappear soon, so it's a skill on my cv.

But as I said in my previous posts, it is a problem since then I'm the only one in the department that knows objective c and hence the only one to support it.

If you guys are planning to support iOS then isn't it a given that a team has to be skilled in developing / supporting it. Remember the skill you're gaining is Objective-C, which btw is one of the oldest OOP languages, so there's no chance it'll disappear anytime soon.

Re your team: surely there must be another developer who would similarly be interested to learn? An alternative is to outsource the initial solution to a 3rd party in order to avoid the typical delay when tackling a new platform, train your team in parallel and ultimately takeover future support of the app internally.

Many companies have made the transition; and you'll find that the majority tend to use the default platform tools.

You also need to consider that many of the alternative coding solutions for iOS have failed; Adobe's attempt being the most notable one.

The point is that Codenameone cannot provide you mire surety about their future sustainability; their financial situation cannot be comparable to Apple, or Xamarin (who has recently partnered with Microsoft globally) -- so whose to say they won't be the next one to fail.

 

[invalidname]

Nope. Did you try Codename One?

Most of our team members use Windows machines and a lot of our users use Android devices so doing stuff with Objective-C is just silly for our use case.

Outsourcing is problematic especially for in-house stuff. The cost is maintenance and using something like that REALLY saves there, we found issues on Android and they turned out to be applicable to iOS too. Fixed once and it works everywhere.

I think most companies made these choices because the alternatives were PhoneGap (which IMO suck unless you really love JavaScript) or tools like Appcelerator. I'm not saying that Codename One doesn't have issues, its designer tool could sure use a facelift and I would love proper on-device debugging but neither is a dealbreaker.

Yes, Codename One being a small startup was a big concern to me too. However, they are open source and there is this guy: http://sjhannah.com/blog/?p=228 so I'm pretty confident.
I was watching the talk Shai (their CEO) gave at JavaZone: http://www.codenameone.com/3/post/2013/09/javazone-trip-report.html
He said something rather amusing on that subject in the Q&A in the end sort of about Sun/Oracle abandoning JavaFX 1.x/Swing developers to focus on JavaFX 2. So you shouldn't trust large well established American companies.
Right now we have a relatively small foot in the water project, if we start doing big stuff with it we will probably upgrade to the Enterprise subscription which includes escrow options.

 

[[)roi(]]

Objective-C development is 99USD per year.
You can call native code (Objective-C) in Codename One although I haven't tried that myself.

We can get into a religious debate over whether using a tool or Objective-C is better, I prefer an abstraction layer but that's just me. I think it lets me update faster and support my customers better. I'm also a Java developer so for me Codename One is superior.

Regarding abstraction preference; so did most of the Actionscript developers when Adobe first introduced the same option; funny now how few continue to use the platform and even worse how badly Adobe supports it.

You're only fooling yourself as Codenameone already doesn't support most of the iOS APi; the main problem iMO is in their approach to the frameworks;

For example: Xamarin did not try to bend the iOS APIs to map onto the .NET framework; they looked at the problem overall, and chose the path of least resistance, and one that allowed developers to follow the extensive Apple documentation -- they mirrored iOS framework, which in turn makes it very simple for them to adopt new iOS features; btw they launched full support of iOS7 on the same day Apple released iOS 7 to the public.

You can't say the same for Codenameone. The fact that you even mention support for inline Objective-C implies that they have acknowledged limitations in their solution.

Plus how many of the "abstracted" developers would even be able to take advantage of this; re if they were capable in Objective-C, why would they even bother to continue to develop on Codenameone?

 

[invalidname]

I was never a Flash guy so I don't really follow that.

I don't need Codename One to support any of the iOS API, I need it to support the features I need and if I suddenly need something special I can invoke Objective-C. Since its compiled by xcode on their build servers I don't really understand how I'm fooling myself?
What sort of "special things" do I need for my apps?

Every solution has limitations and so does Codename One, this is sort of like saying using a car isn't good because it can't take me up to my office. I need to use an elevator to get there... Yes if I need a bit of native code to use some additional minor feature I can do that. So far didn't run into a single case where this was a problem.

I'm somewhat shocked you are arguing with me about a product you haven't tried and have come to such a strong set of conclusions on... It seems you have a strongly held opinion which you are trying to defend for every use case. I agree that there are good cases for native (in which Xamarin is closer to native) but there are great cases to WORA too and they are very common.
Business applications are usually far more suited to WORA.

 

[[)roi(]]

Nope. Did you try Codename One?

Why would I bother?

Most of our team members use Windows machines and a lot of our users use Android devices so doing stuff with Objective-C is just silly for our use case.

This is always the same debate with a new corporate to iOS development; being mostly Microsoft shops there is always a significant push back against switching to Apple for development of iOS. You're only shooting yourself in the foot with this one (it's a kin to developing Windows apps on Linux or Mac; without a VM) - crazy stuff.

Outsourcing is problematic especially for in-house stuff. The cost is maintenance and using something like that REALLY saves there, we found issues on Android and they turned out to be applicable to iOS too. Fixed once and it works everywhere.

The old style of outsourcing is no longer applicable; most companies either choose to temporarily contract in skills to bolster the in-house teams to quickly gain a foothold on the new platform. Source code ownership is rarely ceded o a 3rd party anymore.

I think most companies made these choices because the alternatives were PhoneGap (which IMO suck unless you really love JavaScript) or tools like Appcelerator. I'm not saying that Codename One doesn't have issues, its designer tool could sure use a facelift and I would love proper on-device debugging but neither is a dealbreaker.

Yes, Codename One being a small startup was a big concern to me too. However, they are open source and there is this guy: http://sjhannah.com/blog/?p=228 so I'm pretty confident.
I was watching the talk Shai (their CEO) gave at JavaZone: http://www.codenameone.com/3/post/2013/09/javazone-trip-report.html
He said something rather amusing on that subject in the Q&A in the end sort of about Sun/Oracle abandoning JavaFX 1.x/Swing developers to focus on JavaFX 2. So you shouldn't trust large well established American companies.
Right now we have a relatively small foot in the water project, if we start doing big stuff with it we will probably upgrade to the Enterprise subscription which includes escrow options.

I covered these issues in my previous post. Your analogy about JavaFX doesn't apply; Apple like Microsoft have a well thought out and transparent transition plan when it comes to deprecating
APIs -- as I said before, Objective-C has been in active development for a very long time; so their practices around platform evolution are very clear (consider that it has made multiple form factor and CPU transitions; from Motorola CPUs in NeXT, to PowerPC in the older Macs, to Intel, to ARM).

 

[[)roi(]]

I was never a Flash guy so I don't really follow that.

I don't need Codename One to support any of the iOS API, I need it to support the features I need and if I suddenly need something special I can invoke Objective-C. Since its compiled by xcode on their build servers I don't really understand how I'm fooling myself?
What sort of "special things" do I need for my apps?

You've got to be joking, right?
That's like saying I don't need Windows APIs to write a Windows App? You do understand that what they have done is to try map the iOS API onto a more rudimentary framework of their own design, ultimately your Codenameone calls map directly onto a iOS APi. The problem with this approach is that it always going to be difficult to adapt to changes, so adopters of this technology will always be last to market with new features.

The entire concept of WORA is quite farcical as each platform requires adaptation; if you to skirt around this you only end up with more problems.

More so by getting you to use there abstracted API they are locking you in as a customer; the centralized compilation only further cements this. That is one big risk; they've literally got you by the balls.

Every solution has limitations and so does Codename One, this is sort of like saying using a car isn't good because it can't take me up to my office. I need to use an elevator to get there... Yes if I need a bit of native code to use some additional minor feature I can do that. So far didn't run into a single case where this was a problem.

I'm somewhat shocked you are arguing with me about a product you haven't tried and have come to such a strong set of conclusions on... It seems you have a strongly held opinion which you are trying to defend for every use case. I agree that there are good cases for native (in which Xamarin is closer to native) but there are great cases to WORA too and they are very common.
Business applications are usually far more suited to WORA.

Name one well known, multi platform and long lasted solution developed with WORA (Ps. don't quote Codenameone as it hasn't been around long enough to meet this measure)

As example: Even Microsoft was not silly enough to attempt this. Office for Mac btw was developed in Objective-C.

 

[invalidname]

I think you missed my point about not trying Codename One. I can accept that its not the right solution for you and that you don't want to use it and that's fine. There are MANY valid use cases for not picking WORA.
What's shocking is that you are so decisive about something you haven't tried for a use case you aren't even familiar with?
There is no "one size fits all" for anything and quite a few people seem to like Codename One and Xamarin and Objective-C. One doesn't have to suck for the other one to be great.

Outsourcing is painful, it means spending ages on the phone with a remote team trying to explain to them the complexities of your business and then when they switch personnel you have to do that all over. Painful. If I can get an app working faster for cheaper by a guy whose in the office next door this is a HUGE benefit. Being able to instantly deliver is a huge benefit for us.

I don't need the Windows API to write Windows Apps. We used Java + Swing so yes that logic is pretty direct. Before that we used various abstractions e.g. Visual Basic, Delphi etc. but never the Windows API.
Swing was great for our needs when Sun actually supported it, unfortunately Sun always sucked with client side development.

Swing worked relatively well for the duration it had, Flash had a reasonably good run too. Then there is QT and arguably GTK and quite a few others. HTML is a long running solution of this type as well if you want to go there.

In fact I'll flip that, name one long running native solution that didn't break compatibility constantly. iOS 7 pretty much shows you guys needed to adapt your apps to that. iPhone 5 had you resizing screens.
With Codename One I just sent a new build and it "just worked" pretty cool.

Microsoft was always inherently against the idea of WORA so saying that they didn't attempt this is like saying Stalin never tried capitalism.

 

[[)roi(]]

I think you missed my point about not trying Codename One. I can accept that its not the right solution for you and that you don't want to use it and that's fine. There are MANY valid use cases for not picking WORA.
What's shocking is that you are so decisive about something you haven't tried for a use case you aren't even familiar with?
There is no "one size fits all" for anything and quite a few people seem to like Codename One and Xamarin and Objective-C. One doesn't have to suck for the other one to be great.

You do get that Objective-C and Xamarin are separate products; not 1 solution?

There are great solutions, mediocre solutions and terrible solutions; Codenameone because of design choices will always be relegated the latter groupings.

Outsourcing is painful, it means spending ages on the phone with a remote team trying to explain to them the complexities of your business and then when they switch personnel you have to do that all over. Painful. If I can get an app working faster for cheaper by a guy whose in the office next door this is a HUGE benefit. Being able to instantly deliver is a huge benefit for us.

Contractors / skills temporarily incorporated into the team? Remote?

I could use the same analogy for how challenging it can be to build a best of class solution when it's often hindered by narrow perspectives; I could, but I won't.

I don't need the Windows API to write Windows Apps. We used Java + Swing so yes that logic is pretty direct. Before that we used various abstractions e.g. Visual Basic, Delphi etc. but never the Windows API.
Swing was great for our needs when Sun actually supported it, unfortunately Sun always sucked with client side development.

Swing worked relatively well for the duration it had, Flash had a reasonably good run too. Then there is QT and arguably GTK and quite a few others. HTML is a long running solution of this type as well if you want to go there.

Mmmmh, you do understand what "import" does? Collection of classes synonymous with API?

In fact I'll flip that, name one long running native solution that didn't break compatibility constantly.

My argument precisely. Occam's Razor moment

iOS 7 pretty much shows you guys needed to adapt your apps to that. iPhone 5 had you resizing screens.
With Codename One I just sent a new build and it "just worked" pretty cool.

You must be building some really ugly apps that break all of the Apple User Interface guidelines.

Ps. iPhone 5 adaptation was simple. iOS7 was more challenging re a redesign of the overall UI/UX, including an adaptation of the Apple UI guidelines.

IMicrosoft was always inherently against the idea of WORA so saying that they didn't attempt this is like saying Stalin never tried capitalism.

Wow something I can agree with Microsoft on

 

[invalidname]

You do get that Objective-C and Xamarin are separate products; not 1 solution?

There are great solutions, mediocre solutions and terrible solutions; Codenameone because of design choices will always be relegated the latter groupings.

Its a shame you choose to take a discussion on opinions to that direction.
Did you port your iOS app to Android? Windows Phone?
For me the Android port took a right click and it looks/feels native enough for me and our users.

Mmmmh, you do understand what "import" does? Collection of classes synonymous with API?

Do you know anything about Swing or Java?

My argument precisely. Occam's Razor moment

I seriously don't get where that came from?
For me the simplest way to write an iOS/Android app was Codename One.

You must be building some really ugly apps that break all of the Apple User Interface guidelines.

Nope. Again assuming things without even trying.
Quite a few Codename One apps are on the store. Granted it doesn't really mean anything since there are a lot of ugly ass native apps.

 

[[)roi(]]

Its a shame you choose to take a discussion on opinions to that direction.
Did you port your iOS app to Android? Windows Phone?
For me the Android port took a right click and it looks/feels native enough for me and our users..

Yes (x3), plus I develop natively in Java. I was an early adopter. So too C#, VB.NET, VB, ... (I could go on, but I won't)

Do you know anything about Swing or Java?

See previous comment. Sun or Wikipedia can help any confusion.

I seriously don't get where that came from?
For me the simplest way to write an iOS/Android app was Codename One.

Assumptions being what they are.

Nope. Again assuming things without even trying.
Quite a few Codename One apps are on the store. Granted it doesn't really mean anything since there are a lot of ugly ass native apps.

For you to make a statement that states that the iOS7 transition was extremely simple on Codenameone (only compilation) contradicts this. You do understand that iOS7 was essentially an upheaval of the UI/UX; so to indicate that you spent NO TIME reworking anything implies exactly that.

Ps. All iOS6, iOS5 apps run unhindered on iOS7 without any compilation, but the real question is: do you really want to be part of the few with the "ugly" / non iOS7 looking apps.

 

[invalidname]

You ported 3 times, how long did each port take?
How long did bug fixes/new features take to propagate?
How did this work across your development team?

For you to make a statement that states that the iOS7 transition was extremely simple on Codenameone (only compilation) contradicts this. You do understand that iOS7 was essentially an upheaval of the UI/UX; so to indicate that you spent NO TIME reworking anything implies exactly that.

Ps. All iOS6, iOS5 apps run unhindered on iOS7 without any compilation, but the real question is: do you really want to be part of the few with the "ugly" / non iOS7 looking apps.

Codename One automatically adapts to iOS 7, native themeing, icons etc. so everything automatically works.
Since our UI isn't highly customized the only thing we should have changed were icons but since the app is for internal use this isn't very important. If we had to change that the work is purely on a design level.

Since Codename One is portable between all Android devices and their variance the changes between iOS 6 to 7 were practically nothing for us as end users and the app looks like an iOS 7 app.

 

[[)roi(]]

You ported 3 times, how long did each port take?

We're not talking 1 solution; development for the 1st platform would naturally take longer as that would involve design / architecture / refinement. Platform 2 and 3 were significantly faster as the APIs were already defined and just required replication. The part that always takes longer is UI/UX adaptation, unless of course you don't

How long did bug fixes/new features take to propagate?

How long is a piece of string? it's not just 1 person; time is always a factor of complexity, skills and resources.

How did this work across your development team?

Not sure I understand the question? We had to build Apps for the major platforms and that's what we did.

Btw we have tried most solutions and kicked them to the curb in light of limitations and future proofing. I'm really quite surprised that you place so must faith in a company / solution that is so new and untested (and relies on the livelihood 2 guys; hope they never cross the road )

The other weird aspect of their website is that I find no app or customer portfolios -- surely they would want to brag about how many large and / or popular apps were converted with their solution?

In the Objective-C world there is a similar quick porting solution (www.apportable.com), which we have been conducting quite a few tests on; so far it seems to live up to marketing hype. The good aspects are that it provides full support for the Android APIs and allows code blocks to specifically adapt the applications for Android. Yet even with their impressive portfolio of successful ports, they're still a young company so we're a little hesitant to fully commit to this as yet,

Codename One automatically adapts to iOS 7, native themeing, icons etc. so everything automatically works.
Since our UI isn't highly customized the only thing we should have changed were icons but since the app is for internal use this isn't very important. If we had to change that the work is purely on a design level.

They don't even support the full API; sorry but you're wrong. It's no different to generic skinning solutions, which at best can only expect to be poor alternatives to the real thing.

Since Codename One is portable between all Android devices and their variance the changes between iOS 6 to 7 were practically nothing for us as end users and the app looks like an iOS 7 app.

Mmmhh somehow I don't believe you; their marketing videos look nothing like great designed apps -- sorry the word ugly keeps popping up.

 

[invalidname]

We didn't like other solutions in this field too (e.g. Appcelertor etc.) they all pretty much sucked and again most of these rely on JavaScript which I think is pretty awful for any heavy lifting.
We didn't need to do heavy UI/UX stuff since again we are developing internally so that's not a big deal, as corporate apps go this is pretty nice looking (which isn't saying much).

They have a few apps on their website, nothing to write home about but in the home page if you scroll down you can scroll thru a set of apps, I had a hard time finding it myself. I installed a couple to see how it looks and while I can't say I was impressed (with the exception of YHomework which was cool as a math geek) they had some that seemed decent enough for what we need.
I wrote to Shai asking him for a decent looking iOS app and he pointed me at this: https://itunes.apple.com/il/app/qmarkets-mobile/id733539152?mt=8 he says its pretty new so its still in beta.

Apportable seems smaller than Codename One, I saw them mentioned before and looked them up. Seems like a great solution for game developers but I can't imagine building a form based UI with this (which is what we need). Its also not really practical for us since it starts from the point of having a Mac/Objective-C which makes it harder for me to work with the team.
While Xamarin is bigger, without Miguel or Nat that company will collapse like a house of cards too. Startups are always a risk and Xamarin with all its funding is still a startup.

They have marketing videos?
That's news to me ;-)
All I saw are lots of screen captures that Shai made which is pretty prolific but ugly as hell. Doesn't really indicate what the product is or how good it can be in the right hands.

 

[[)roi(]]

We didn't like other solutions in this field too (e.g. Appcelertor etc.) they all pretty much sucked and again most of these rely on JavaScript which I think is pretty awful for any heavy lifting.

No arguments here.

We didn't like other solutions in this field too (e.g. AppWe didn't need to do heavy UI/UX stuff since again we are developing internally so that's not a big deal, as corporate apps go this is pretty nice looking (which isn't saying much).

We have done a lot of corporate app developments so I find it strange when you say UI/UX is less important in that space.

My experience has been exactly opposite; continued usage of an app can easily be measured by how well the apps are perceived; nobody likes a clunker.

We didn't like other solutions in this field too (e.g. AppThey have a few apps on their website, nothing to write home about but in the home page if you scroll down you can scroll thru a set of apps, I had a hard time finding it myself. I installed a couple to see how it looks and while I can't say I was impressed (with the exception of YHomework which was cool as a math geek) they had some that seemed decent enough for what we need.
I wrote to Shai asking him for a decent looking iOS app and he pointed me at this: https://itunes.apple.com/il/app/qmarkets-mobile/id733539152?mt=8 he says its pretty new so its still in beta.

Strange with all this bad /missing marketing that you singled out Codenameone over the others? More so that you thought it a more robust approach than native.

Apportable seems smaller than Codename One, I saw them mentioned before and looked them up. Seems like a great solution for game developers but I can't imagine building a form based UI with this (which is what we need). Its also not really practical for us since it starts from the point of having a Mac/Objective-C which makes it harder for me to work with the team.

Smaller? Financially I think they're on par? Notability will always be a matter of opinion with 2 startups; yet marketing wise it's seems apparent that 1 is more strongly segmented with game developers.

Where you're wrong is that Apportable is not limited to only games (that's an area that was easy to support & gain positive marketing) -- their real goals are illustrated by their pricing; as to form based UI, you need to look a little further, the Android APIs are fully exposed, including everything needed for business apps (via a set of wrappers they call BridgeKit). Unlike Codenameone they have kept the same API structure for Android, so that transition would be easier (Objective-C aside of course)

While Xamarin is bigger, without Miguel or Nat that company will collapse like a house of cards too. Startups are always a risk and Xamarin with all its funding is still a startup.

Agreed, Xamarin is the least volatile of the 3.

So why take the risk; surely your team members are able to adapt?

They have marketing videos?
That's news to me ;-)
All I saw are lots of screen captures that Shai made which is pretty prolific but ugly as hell. Doesn't really indicate what the product is or how good it can be in the right hands.

Exactly, something else we agree on.

 

[invalidname]

We have done a lot of corporate app developments so I find it strange when you say UI/UX is less important in that space.

My experience has been exactly opposite; continued usage of an app can easily be measured by how well the apps are perceived; nobody likes a clunker.

Separate external from internal usage apps. But I didn't say clunker either.
The main constraint is getting a designer/UX guy which would contribute more to the projects usability/look than all the tools combined. I can't get approval for those types for an internal usage app. I had to draw my own icon in gimp.
To be fair, that does make sense. When your app is for internal use its hard to justify the budget expenses to management.

Strange with all this bad /missing marketing that you singled out Codenameone over the others? More so that you thought it a more robust approach than native.

I'm saying this after building an app on the product. We gave it a try since this is pretty much the only WORA Java solution out there and we have a lot of Swing experience.

Smaller? Financially I think they're on par? Notability will always be a matter of opinion with 2 startups; yet marketing wise it's seems apparent that 1 is more strongly segmented with game developers.

Where you're wrong is that Apportable is not limited to only games (that's an area that was easy to support & gain positive marketing) -- their real goals are illustrated by their pricing; as to form based UI, you need to look a little further, the Android APIs are fully exposed, including everything needed for business apps (via a set of wrappers they call BridgeKit). Unlike Codenameone they have kept the same API structure for Android, so that transition would be easier (Objective-C aside of course)

So I'd have to write Android apps in Objetive-C???
Sounds less and less appealing as you describe it;

I think its pretty safe to say that we disagree on the value of WORA so I think we can avoid the Apportable discussion.

Agreed, Xamarin is the least volatile of the 3.

So why take the risk; surely your team members are able to adapt?
Exactly, something else we agree on.

Well it works for me and my team and we obviously do believe in WORA.
Its a matter of balancing your preferences and where you want to spend your time.

You want to spend your time giving the most refined up to date native experience possible regardless of cost (which you would argue to be very little). Does that represent your motivation fairly?

We want to run on as many devices as possible and move as much of our users to mobile/tablets as fast as possible. We were actually going to go with PhoneGap when we noticed Codename One. A lot of people pick PhoneGap, you might not agree with their decision but you probably agree with the fact that they do.
Now ask yourself this, can Codename One beat PhoneGap? Is it better than PhoneGap?

 

[[)roi(]]

Separate external from internal usage apps. But I didn't say clunker either. The main constraint is getting a designer/UX guy which would contribute more to the projects usability/look than all the tools combined. I can't get approval for those types for an internal usage app. I had to draw my own icon in gimp.
To be fair, that does make sense. When your app is for internal use its hard to justify the budget expenses to management. ?

The biggest limit I can see is that Codenameone's template design immediately strips away the flexibility; so a UI/UX designer would anyway be wasted with that choice anyway.

Plus you'll be surprised how much can be achieved without a dedicated UI/UX resource; many seasoned developers have some aptitude for what works.

Surely in either case a business case would factor in the entire life-cycle; shortcuts on design are well known to end up biting in the production / support area.

I'm saying this after building an app on the product. We gave it a try since this is pretty much the only WORA Java solution out there and we have a lot of Swing experience.?

So I'd have to write Android apps in Objetive-C???
Sounds less and less appealing as you describe it;?

Nope, never implied that.

I think its pretty safe to say that we disagree on the value of WORA so I think we can avoid the Apportable discussion. ?

Some of the worst apps I've ever encountered in the corporate world were fortunately for me, built with WORA; I won't complain, replacing these with something better is both easy and well appreciated.

Well it works for me and my team and we obviously do believe in WORA.
Its a matter of balancing your preferences and where you want to spend your time.

You want to spend your time giving the most refined up to date native experience possible regardless of cost (which you would argue to be very little). Does that represent your motivation fairly?

Development is only a fraction of the entire life cycle; design / architecture making up the biggest part of the construction. Secondly additional effort with construction goes a long way to reduce the cost of support; which is usually the largest cost to consider (hence I will again disagree with you on the importance of UI/UX)

We want to run on as many devices as possible and move as much of our users to mobile/tablets as fast as possible. We were actually going to go with PhoneGap when we noticed Codename One. A lot of people pick PhoneGap, you might not agree with their decision but you probably agree with the fact that they do.
Now ask yourself this, can Codename One beat PhoneGap? Is it better than PhoneGap?

Simple, neither!

Native solutions will always be the best road to future proofing + you're less likely to encounter blocking and/or restrictive issues.

Anyway. Thanks for chat. Good luck, I hope this approach work for you; either way I'll advise you don't compromise on the design / construction, it'll only hurt you in the long run.

 

[aigle2am]

Native is always the best way to go. I would rather use PhoneGap rather than CodenameOne.

 

[kolaval]

Re your team: surely there must be another developer who would similarly be interested to learn? An alternative is to outsource the initial solution to a 3rd party in order to avoid the typical delay when tackling a new platform, train your team in parallel and ultimately takeover future support of the app internally.

You would not believe me if I told you about the team's attitude towards any work that interfere with their dedication to web/movies/series/games/procrastination.

Our app has been outsourced and developed in xamarin.
To support it we need to purchase licenses, but it is buggy and looks like crap imho, so I would just as soon rewrite it.

 

[[)roi(]]

You would not believe me if I told you about the team's attitude towards any work that interfere with their dedication to web/movies/series/games/procrastination.

Our app has been outsourced and developed in xamarin.
To support it we need to purchase licenses, but it is buggy and looks like crap imho, so I would just as soon rewrite it.

Lol. I've managed a few teams like that; time to consult HR?

The crap delivery from the external team should be at least easier to resolve; review the payment terms and link it to a % split for each deliverables: design spec, testing / bug fix quality, sign off. I'd suggest trying to keep back a % (e.g. 10 to 20%) for a period after go live; that way you are assured they work to expediently reduce the problems in production to secure the final payment.

Ps. Avoid releasing your app too quickly; daily bug-fix meetings can go a long way to assess the apps readiness for release.