Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • 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
Cross-platform Frameworks Comparison: Android Applications in a Cross-platform Environment, Xamarin Vs Flutter
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
2021 (English)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesisAlternative title
En Jämförelse av Cross-platform Ramverk : Android Applikationer i en Cross-plattform Miljö, Xamarin Jämfört med Flutter (Swedish)
Abstract [en]

Good performance is important for an application to run smoothly for the end user, but good tools and documentation are just as important for a developer in order tobe able to create good applications in the shortest amount of time.  This paper is comparing the cross-platform frameworks Flutter and Xamarin to find the respective strengths of the frameworks and which one is the better option and in what aspect, the newer Flutter or the well established Xamarin. We did this by studying related works to the topic as well as building applications in each framework with methods to test the performance of the applications, all the while trying out the tools and documentation of each framework. Our initial hypothes is was that Xamarin as a mature framework would perform better on average and it would also have more well developed tools. However we instead found Xamarin severely lacking compared to the newer Flutter framework and were at best equal or just slightly better. Flutter outperformed Xamarin in CPU performance, at times 3 times better than Xamarin, Flutter’s application size being almost half of the Xamarin application and the Flutter application load times were also faster. The tools were for most parts equal but the results of the documentations were split, with Xamarin having better component documentation with code examples for the components and Flutter having inconsistencies in documentation structure. However the Xamarin documentation was severely lacking in updated documentation and confusing instructions at places. The only things Xamarin performed better on were the number of lines in the codeas well as being marginally better performing at the RAM capacity test. The conclusion would be that Flutter is a well performing framework that continues to develop while Xamarin feels stagnant and most of its development seems to have slowed down over the last two years

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2021. , p. 45
Keywords [en]
Android, Performance, Xamarin, Flutter, Cross-platform
National Category
Computer Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-21696OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-21696DiVA, id: diva2:1568490
Subject / course
PA1445 Kandidatkurs i Programvaruteknik
Educational program
PAGWE Web Programming
Presentation
2021-05-27, Online, 09:30 (English)
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2021-08-12 Created: 2021-06-17 Last updated: 2021-08-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Cross-platform Frameworks Comparison - Android Applications in a Cross-platform Environment, Xamarin Vs Flutter(1064 kB)950 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1064 kBChecksum SHA-512
7034a7d8ce548871148ecaed919afb79226daf1677e30ac45aa5d61fbad3e516b7c908f7f52a63e4af678d3e5122087f2c25258f12b2088fffce849baefdd4b8
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rasmusson Wright, YlvaHedlund, Simon
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
Computer Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 950 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

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 2380 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • 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