Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
  • Development

    11 articles in this category

      Benefits of Using ReactJS for Your Web Development Project

      Introduction
      ReactJS Development Company is a software development firm specializing in the development of web applications using the ReactJS library. ReactJS is a popular JavaScript library for building user interfaces, and it is known for its improved performance, reusable components, ease of use, and strong community support. At ReactJS Development Company, our team of skilled developers has extensive experience in building complex and scalable web applications using ReactJS.
      Our developers have a deep understanding of ReactJS and its capabilities, and they use this knowledge to build high-quality, user-friendly web applications that meet the needs of our clients. We work closely with our clients to understand their requirements and to create customized solutions that meet their unique needs. Our goal is to deliver web applications that are fast, responsive, and user-friendly, and that provide a positive experience for users.
      At ReactJS Development Company, we are committed to using the latest technologies and best practices to deliver high-quality software solutions. Our development process is guided by Agile methodology, which allows us to rapidly iterate and make changes based on feedback from our clients. This ensures that our clients receive software that meets their needs and exceeds their expectations.
      Whether you need a new web application or are looking to upgrade an existing one, ReactJS Development Company is here to help. Our team of experienced developers is ready to work with you to build a custom solution that meets your needs. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you with your web development project.
      Advantages of Utilizing ReactJS
      ReactJS is one of the most popular JavaScript libraries for building user interfaces. It was developed by Facebook and has been widely adopted by the web development community since its release in 2013. ReactJS has a number of benefits that make it an excellent choice for web development projects, ranging from improved performance to ease of use.
      Improved Performance
      ReactJS uses a virtual DOM (Document Object Model) to update the user interface, which results in faster and smoother updates to the user interface. The virtual DOM is a lightweight in-memory representation of the actual DOM, and React uses this representation to make changes to the user interface without having to directly update the DOM, which can be slow and resource-intensive. By using the virtual DOM, ReactJS is able to update the user interface much more quickly, resulting in a better user experience.
      Reusable Components
      ReactJS allows developers to create reusable components that can be easily shared across multiple projects. This makes it easy to build complex user interfaces, as developers can break down the interface into smaller, reusable components that can be managed and maintained separately. This also leads to better code organization, as components can be organized into a structured hierarchy, making it easier to understand and maintain the codebase over time.
      Ease of Use
      ReactJS is a very easy-to-learn and use JavaScript library. It uses a syntax that is familiar to most web developers, and its component-based architecture makes it easy to build and manage complex user interfaces. Additionally, ReactJS has a large and active community, which means that there is a wealth of resources available to help developers learn the library and solve any problems they may encounter.
      Server-Side Rendering
      ReactJS supports server-side rendering, which can help improve the performance of web applications. Server-side rendering is a technique where the user interface is rendered on the server and sent to the client as a complete HTML document, rather than being generated on the client. This can result in faster initial load times, as the client does not have to wait for JavaScript to execute and render the user interface. Additionally, server-side rendering can improve the SEO of a web application, as search engines can crawl and index the HTML document more easily.
      React Native
      ReactJS has a sister library called React Native, which allows developers to build native mobile applications using the same components and concepts used in ReactJS. This means that developers can build cross-platform mobile applications using the same codebase, which can save time and resources compared to building separate native applications for each platform. Additionally, React Native uses native components, which provides a more native feel to the user interface compared to hybrid mobile applications.
      Strong Community Support
      ReactJS has a large and active community, which means that there are a wealth of resources available to help developers learn the library and solve any problems they may encounter. Additionally, ReactJS is maintained by Facebook, which ensures that the library is well-supported and updated on a regular basis. This provides a level of stability and reliability that is not always present in other JavaScript libraries.
      Improved Productivity
      Finally, ReactJS can help improve developer productivity, as it allows developers to build complex user interfaces quickly and efficiently. Additionally, its component-based architecture makes it easy to manage and maintain code, which can help reduce the time and resources required to build and maintain web applications over time.
      Conclusion 
      ReactJS is an excellent choice for web development projects due to its improved performance, reusable components, ease of use, server-side rendering, React Native compatibility, strong community support, and improved productivity.
       

      Kotlin Vs. Java: Which is Best for Developing Android Apps?

      For more than two decades, Java was one of the more sought-after programming languages used on a variety of devices. Since the beginning, mobile apps developers have relied on Java to create hundreds of applications. In May 2019, Google announced that Kotlin was the preferred programming language for the Google Play Store for Android applications.
      To develop a successful mobile app, it is crucial to choose the best among Kotlin vs Java languages. Let’s learn what these languages are, their pros and cons, and which one will fit your app project. Let’s look at. Kotlin Programming Language
      Kotlin Programming Language
      Kotlin is mostly the integrated environment used for developing apps. It is also able to create statically JavaScript as well as Java Virtual Machine language (JVM).
      Kotlin is a blend of functional and functional programming. It is more simple, less messy and more efficient to build than Java. Kotlin can convert the code into binary code and run it under JVM. Therefore, it’s suitable for almost every platform & device.
      Java Programming Language
      Java programming language can be described as an object-oriented language. The language is easy to learn, strong, robust, and durable. Java is ideal for Android apps, web applications, server applications, embedded systems, large data and more. Open source is a mix of many elements. Java is the basis of a lot of Android apps and also significant portions of Android.
      Kotlin Vs. Java: What We Need to Know
      Kotlin Vs. Java can’t be used simultaneously for any mobile application development, so it is important to discover which is the most suitable. We’re now going to take a look at the pros and cons of both languages, as well as what makes each one better for certain types of Android applications.
      Data Classes: Kotlin Vs Java
      Java-based Android application development requires you to create variables or fields that can be used to store information. Additionally, you must create constructor, getter and setter methods, as well as toString() and the equals() and hashCode().
      Kotlin automatizes these tasks. You only need to include the word “data” in the definition of the class. The compiler is able to automatically create fields and variables like the setter, getter, constructor, among others.
      Volume & Coding: Kotlin Vs Java
      Kotlin code load is less than Java’s similar programs. Kotlin reduces the chance of errors in code and eases the work of Android app developers. Because of its ease of use, Kotlin is preferred over Java for massive mobile and web application development projects. Kotlin code is easier than Java.
      It doesn’t require constructors to create objects, classes that hold information and get value from declared fields or classes that store the data. Kotlin code is compiled in less than the time required for writing Java code. This accelerates development and deployment.
      Null Safety: Kotlin Vs Java
      Java has many drawbacks, one of which is Null Pointer Exception. The occurrence of a Null Pointer Exception is only triggered when the user is explicit in throwing it. Inconsistencies in data can occur due to Java code problems with initialization, as well as other issues. Kotlin is unable to run when a Null Pointer Exception is generated.
      For the best Kotlin Vs. Java choice and usage, look to hire Android app developers with professional expertise and excellent knowledge.
      Wildcards: Kotlin Vs Java
      Kotlin is not able to use wildcard types. Declaration variance & the type projections are Kotlin’s wildcard choices. Java allows wildcards. Wildcard codes are typically an unidentified kind. It governs the type security of Java-based codes within a software.
      Operator Overloading: Kotlin Vs Java
      You can make use of a range of mathematical operators within Kotlin such as subtraction, addition & division. It is possible to compare objects and conduct quality checks with symbols. The Java programming language relies on particular Java data types with mathematical operators. The Kotlin Vs. Java debate is won by Kotlin in terms of Operator Overloading.
      Performance: Kotlin Vs Java
      JVM runs ByteCode which is written using Java as well as Kotlin. It is however hard to assess their memory consumption. It’s difficult to evaluate and monitor their performance. Kotlin has more features than Java which makes it more practical.
      Multithreading applications are made simpler with Kotlin Coroutines tool. Because of its plethora of features, it compiles & runs a bit slower than Java. Java is however much less complicated than Kotlin which means that it is faster to compile.
      For top assistance, you must seek assistance from a Best Android app development company and hire Android app developers with great expertise.
      Stability: Kotlin Vs Java
      It’s the stability that lets us detect distinctions. Let’s begin with Java. Java is one of the languages with an extensive history. Java Version 8 & Java Version 11 both provide extensive support. If anything goes wrong, the Java versions can be upgraded via patches.
      Despite Kotlin’s long history, it is still a relatively young language. There is no official version yet. Java and Kotlin can be considered to be stable languages. If you are looking for stability, Java is the best option.
      Final Words
      We’ve got the complete list to offer on our analysis of the Kotlin vs. Java Debate. Hopefully, you will be satisfied with our analysis and choose the best option based on your preferences. Be it Java or be it Kotlin, everyone has their era and today’s era is inclining towards Kotlin programming Language.

      Atomic CSS - what is it and is it useful?

      Atomic Design, or Functional Design as it is also referenced, is a bit of a weird beast. On one hand, it is a programmatic shorthand feature that allow you to use short code in development that then render CSS based on that, but it also a philosophy of sorts on how to organize CSS. A philosophy that very much resemble the inline-css era of old.
      The problem statement
      I think this statement says a lot on how ACSS and to some degree Atomic Design itself see the world of CSS. Anyone working with wild or free CSS development can certainly recognize some of these pain points. This is not uncommon in scenarios where many developers work in the same project or you have to work on top of a not so well-designed product.
      The question is, though, how many still work in that way and why?
      In a scenario where you have a defined design pattern, which should be the norm these days, this is rarely an issue. Regardless if you do atomic design or component design, your styles should be easy to maintain and define. Despite this I still see a lot of JS developers adopt inline styling and duplication of CSS in components. This is more common in libraries like React and Angular, I feel (personal experience, no real numbers to support that).
      So it is not surprising to see a rise in areas like Atomic Design or ACSS since that help bridge the gap in skill levels some JS developers have and the inherent despise we have to spend more time than we have to on things we don't really enjoy doing. Not to mention, there are some benefits that should not be overlooked.
      ACSS - Atomic Design as a preprocessor
      ACSS is a preprocessor that will transform inline HTML variables and create CSS from it. It has a fairly simple syntax and it works by looping though the HTML and scrape up the variables and then make a CSS file from what it finds.  In many ways, this is similar to inline CSS, but you would get a static CSS file instead of just printing it out in a style tag.
      If we borrow an example from the excellent CSS-Tricks site that I highly recommend you check out, then here is a snippet of code where we declare some classes and input a variable to each.
      <!-- Programmatic Atomic CSS Example --> <div class="Bgc(#0280ae) C(#fff) P(20px)">Lorem ipsum</div> The output from this would then generate the following CSS:
      .Bgc\(#0280ae\) { background-color: #0280ae; } .C\(#fff\) { color: #fff; } .P\(20px\) { padding: 20px; } This may seem quite useless compared to a well-defined CSS with variables declared that I could just input, but you could use both of course and use this to override in certain situations. Similar to how you would use inline styling.
      The biggest benefit of this however is that the CSS generated would be as small as you could make it. This is because the CSS would be based only on what can be found in the HTML. This can be useful for development in for example Angular and React, where I assume this is mostly used.
      In situations where you have classes reused over many components, like this website however, that would not really be as beneficial as having multiple CSS files is never a good thing and you would see duplication of classes. This is of course if you generate the CSS on a modular basis, but not if you render it globally on load somehow.
      Overall, I do not see any need for me working with sites like Invision Community and I feel it would not really work well in an atomic design situation with defined styles in both the UI and the HTML/CSS that is reused across components.
      I may be completely wrong about that, as I have not tried it and if so, sign off in the comments to tell me I am wrong 🙂
       
      Atomic Design as a Philosophy
      The idea of Atomic CSS is simple and, to be honest, not very new. The idea is to create single attribute classes and then stuff the HTML with them. Kind of like you would do using Inline styling, but with a global definition of the styles. It would look something like this.
      /* naming utility classes */ .relative { position: relative; } .mt10 { margin-top: 10px; } .pb10 { padding-bottom: 10px; } I say that this is nothing new because this has been around since before inline styling even existed. One reason it is not widely used is because it makes the HTML cluttered and hard to read. It is also a bit annoying to work with compared to having well-defined CSS classes as you will have a ton of attribute shortcuts basically rather than a library of styles.
      If you are used to working with frameworks like bootstrap, then you are already familiar with the concept, since those frameworks also have libraries of smaller styles that you can mix and match. Atomic CSS is much smaller however and rather than having for example a flexbox class that have the standard values you use all over the site you have to build those up with a set of classes inline in the HTML.
      Is it a terrible idea?
      Atomic design as a concept can be traced back to October 2013 and an article written by Thierry Koblenz. It has since evolved and you will often see it in reference from the new breed of JS developers that work in frameworks like React and Angular. While it may be a bit unfair to say that these new JS developers do not have that same deep understanding of CSS as the "regular" front end developers, I do see this distinction growing.
      For the JS developers however, this is pretty useful as they can focus on function rather than form. You have probably seen the mess that sometimes happen when JS developers mix inline styling, component specific styling and global styling. It is as bad as having multiple novis CSS developers trying to use EM when they do not control the output containers...
      I hear some arguments that this makes it easier to avoid specificity issues, but I do not agree with that. If you control your code, then you are a pretty bad developer if you can't handle your classes properly. It all comes down to planning and setting structures after all, unless you are just playing around like I do on this site.
      I digress though and to answer the question if this is a terrible idea I think there are use cases for when this can be useful. Since that article in 2013 however, I think those use cases are less now, especially with the introduction of CSS variables. I do however think there is a very good case for using this same idea for defining variables and to keep your classes small as a philosophy.
      I do think there are certain scenarios where it is a good idea to use the concept of Atomic design, and that is for overrides. Things like fonts, colors and spacing can be useful to sometimes just make a small adjustment rather than building new components.
      Also, if you generate your content at runtime on the server, there are benefits to this since you can combine it with CSS-in-JS to dynamically generate very small CSS files. I guess this is why React and Angular developers are liking this way to organize your CSS classes. You can still do this working with regular CSS, but the files will be bigger since you are bound to have duplicate attributes in your classes.
      So it is not a terrible idea, but it comes with some issues.
      Allow me to explain...
      My Thoughts
      While there are benefits in some cases, there are some negatives as well. The biggest issue for me is that while we reduce the CSS, we instead increase the size of the HTML. The HTML also becomes much more cluttered and harder to read because unlike CSS where we can group classes, or even split them on multiple files, HTML will just be one big garbled mess.
      Consistency is also an issue because the idea of recreate clusters of classes to achieve the components is done manually every time, then you will see consistency go out the window. We see this all the time in wild or free CSS, where pretty much every component have its own class styles uniquely. This is especially problematic if you have JS developers that are not very good at using CSS and you try to set up a design library.
      At the end of the day however, front-end developers are flexible and resourceful people. All of these potential pitfalls can be managed and if Atomic CSS works for you and those that you collaborate with, then go for it. Just don't make the decision just in the development team as you need to work well with both Design and Test so they should have a say as well. Also, your way of working must work across teams, so don't start using Atomic CSS if you at any time will have other teams working in the code as well.
      You know all that of course, but it is something that you can never repeat too many times.
       
      Do you use Atomic Design today?
      If you do, what benefits and pitfalls have you uncovered?

      Developer Velocity Index - one-sided nonsense or useful?

      Developer Velocity Index, or DVI for short, is pushed hard by Microsoft right now as a way to sell Azure DevOps as I see it. So what is it and is it just another pointless measurement tool that does not address the big elephant in the room, or can it actually be useful? Let us dig into it and find out.
      So Developer Velocity Index is a tool for measuring, well, quite a lot actually. At first glance we see a lot of focus on tools, which of course is the main goal for Microsoft as they need to get more clients for Azure Devops that is trying to challenge prominent actors such as Atlassian.
      If you look a bit deeper however you will see that the DVI is pretty extensive. While focus is on tools it seems to look at these from a perspective that is not just focused on the development discipline. DVI claim to involve 46 different drivers across 13 dimensions and that is pretty good. I say claim because I have not tried this yet, so I do not know to what extent this is actually true.
       

       
      The DVI is based on self-assessment through questionnaires, which is not a bad way to do this honestly. It will ensure that the introverts also get a say, which is not always the case in verbal situations where the extroverts are always loudest.
      I see the tool angle a lot when reading about DVI, but when you dig down you see that what that almost always mean is that the tools in question bridge the gap between business and IT. Tools that help manage inflow, portfolio management and of course tools to help with clarifying need, especially in Agile teams. I think Tibi Covaci from Microsoft express this best:
      I think this is profoundly true. Like my former colleague Eva Nordstrom would say "A fool with a tool is still a fool".  Good tools with a good and well-educated organization however, that will truly generate magic. It is my hope that DVI can help illustrate the need for organizational change to help facilitate that. This is often the biggest issue in my experience and one that is very hard to overcome.
      It is also no big revelation that most organizations find the funnel between business and IT to be lacking or that this is where most organizations fail. The introduction of Agile often make this worse, which is not the fault of Agile, but the way it is implemented in organizations. Hopefully DVI can illustrate the need to have a proper portfolio management on the operative level and that even in Agile work teams you need to ensure that demands are evolved.
      Ad-Hoc and shooting things from the hip are sure ways to make any developer sad after all, and we all want some form of structure to our chaos to ensure we know what to do, yet remain flexible...
      Developer Velocity Index is interesting, but it is still a stick that should not be needed in mature organizations. Sadly there are very few mature organizations out there, so I think this is very interesting for many reasons. I will dig into it some more and see what I can learn.
      What do you think?
      Is it just a selling tool for more tools you don't need, or something that can drive actual change?

      How to make realistic estimates when working with software development

      Estimations for software development seem to be the bane of almost every company, but why is that really? Why is it so difficult to approximate the time and effort required when we do this all the time? There are a few reasons and in this article I will go over how I do my estimations and give you some of my experience on how you can maintain a 90% accuracy in any project.
      For a good estimate you need to start with one very important thing: define if you estimate based on time to complete or  time to deliver. These are very different because the time to deliver will be substantially higher and much more prone to variations. This is because in the daily work you will be dragged into meetings, have people distracting you and so on. For good estimations we always estimate on time to complete as our basis.
      Stop doing happy estimates
      The worst thing you can do is making happy estimates. These are estimates based on the utopia that everything will work smoothly and you will be left in total isolation to focus. It never happens and Murphy is always present. Happy estimates may seem good because the product owner love low estimates, but they hate when you fail to deliver.
      Happy estimates usually happen when an architect is stressed and throw out a guesstimate on the fly. It will almost always bite you in the butt because not only will everything seem easy to the architect, so they will underestimate it, they also never consider Murphy.
      You do not estimate to be nice, you estimate to give a realistic view on when something can be available in production. If you have a hard time to stop making happy estimates, then implement this very simple rule:
      "Any time that is needed beyond the time you have estimated you will do in your own time without payment"
      Take your time doing estimates
      An estimate is not a guesstimate that you throw out on a high level requirement. An estimate is your promise on when you can deliver and as such you should take your time and think that through. Don't sit around doing arbitrary guess work in a planning poker or play with t-shirt sizes unless you want to avoid doing any estimates at all. That type of guesstimating is for high level requirements, so make sure they stay there.
      Break down the requirement and use your experience to guide you to a first number in your estimation. This estimate is how long it will actually take to sit down and build based on the requirement. Make sure that you ask questions to clarify where needed so have the information you need. This is also a good time to start working on a solution design to make sure you have considered things that may not always be apparent. For example validation of data in integrations or extending a JavaScript validation for a new form.
      When we have done this, the number is still wrong, but we need it as a starting point.
      Add the things you forgot
      Now that you have done your estimate, many think they are done. That is rarely the case, so let us add the things that is not included yet. The most obvious problem that I see a lot is that the estimates is usually done by the most experience person, which also usually is the one that work fastest of everyone in the team. So what we do is to look at the estimate and the team, then we adjust based on what the slowest person in the team think is appropriate. This way we know that the base estimate is reasonable for everyone on the team.
      The second thing we do is to consider Murphy. Things always happen and based on the complexity we increase the estimate with 20-100%. Not having room for mistakes is in itself a very big mistake. It will almost always happen and if it does not happen for this particular task we will either be able to resolve things faster than expected, or we have more time for other tasks. Either way that is a positive thing.
      The third thing to look at are testing. All code should have unit tests and it is often forgotten in the estimate. You also have non-functional requirements such as loading times and browser support that you must consider. As a developer you are also responsible for testing the code and this should be added as a second estimate. For many estimates this alone will add 20-200% or even more to the estimate. This is especially true for frontend development where you often have 18+ variations just for devices and browsers.
      These three very simple things easily multiply the original estimate two to three times.
      Now let us consider your efficiency!
      A factor that is very often overlooked is efficiency. No person in any team will ever have 100% efficiency in the sprint. I do not mean your focus level during the day, even if that also is a factor, I am talking about those pesky things that break your concentration. Things like meetings, stand-ups, code reviews and all those "I just want to ask a quick question", cost a lot of your time during the day. In my experience most teams will have an efficiency of around 40-60% depending on how often they are disturbed.
      Depending on if your product owner understand estimation or not you can choose if you add the efficiency in the estimate, or if you have that as an external factor in the sprint itself. If you are new to this part of the estimation I suggest that you start with 50% efficiency and then adjust over time as you get better at estimating your efficiency.
      With this step we now add a second two time multiplier and you are now close to a realistic estimate.
      This may seem like a lot
      This may sound like the estimates always will be very high compared to how you are working today, and you are right. This is why you always feel stressed and why you fail to deliver on promise in every sprint. It is why we invent things like story points to mitigate our inability to take responsibility for things we can't estimate properly. Realistic estimates are just that and if your estimates are far lower than what you get doing estimates this way, then remember this very simple rule:
      It is always better to overestimate and over deliver than to underestimate and under deliver.
       
      The Quick Summary
      Make estimations in actual time to complete, not arbitrary measurements. Take your time to understand the task at hand and stop guesstimating. Adjust the estimate to fit the slowest person on your team. Add task for testing and make estimation separate for that. Remember that things always go wrong, so make room for that. Make sure that your efficiency is considered and calculated into the time to deliver.
      Making good estimates is based on experience and knowledge. This means that like other skills you can get better at it. If you constantly work with arbitrary measurements like story points and you constantly fail with no change to your estimation process, then you should stop doing that. Not only will you fail at a crucial part of your work, your inability to provide accurate estimates actually cause harm in the form of stress and frustration. It is up to you if you want to spend your time in constant failure or constantly provide estimates that are realistic and dependable.
      Learning to make good estimates is not rocket science, just common sense and experience.
      So start doing it today.
×
×
  • Create New...