Starting a Web App in 2022 [Research Results]

We are finally happy to share with you the results of the world’s first study on how developers start a web application in 2022. For this research, we wanted to do a deep dive into how engineers around the globe are starting web apps, how popular the use of low-code platforms and what tools are decisive in creating web applications.

To achieve this, we conducted a survey with 191 software engineers of all experience around the globe. We asked questions around the technology they use to start web applications.

Highlights of the key findings:

The usage of particular technologies in the creation of web apps is closely related to engineers’ experience. New technologies, such as no-code/low-code solutions, GraphQL, and non-relational databases, appeal to developers with less expertise;

Engineers with less experience are more likely to learn from online sources, whereas developers with more expertise in software development prefer to learn from more conventional sources such as books;

Retool and Bubble are the most popular no-code/low-code platforms;

React, Node.js, PostgreSQL, Amazon AWS, and Bootstrap are the most popular web application development stacks.

To read the full report, including additional insights, and full research methodology, visit this page

With Flatlogic you can create full-stack web applications literally in minutes. If you’re interested in trying Flatlogic solutions, sign up for free

The post Starting a Web App in 2022 [Research Results] appeared first on Flatlogic Blog.

Flatlogic Admin Templates banner

After all is said and done, more is said than done

[tie_index]Design & build quality[/tie_index]

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

Apple Watch review: Design

For a slightly more opinionated version of the video review above, here’s the male half of the Macworld team arguing (after four months with this device) about whether the Apple Watch is a great or a terrible product:

The Apple Watch is beautifully designed and engineered, with a great look and feel. It’s chunky, rounded body is faintly reminiscent of the original iPhone, yet simultaneously modern-looking and very satisfying to hold. The Apple Watch is also pleasingly comfortable on the wrist.

We’ve seen lots of fitness trackers over the years, and they’ve typically struck us as pretty formulaic: plasticky wristbands with little fashion appeal. One activity tracker brand tried to convince us that their activity tracker was designed to appeal to a fashion-conscious woman; they even thought that women would wear it around their neck like a necklace. But at the end of the day, it wasn’t jewellery. None of the fitness trackers on the market are.

It’s a similar story with smartwatches. Sure, over the past year they’ve become more and more popular with guys looking for the latest tech gadget, but they don’t appeal to everyone. One major issue is that most smartwatches are designed for men. They wouldn’t sit comfortably on a smaller wrist.

[tie_index]Dimensions[/tie_index]

Apple Watch review: Dimensions

There are two sizes of watch: the 38mm model (which actually measures 38.6 by 33.3 mm) and the 42mm model (which measures 42 by 35.9 mm). Both have a thickness of 10.5mm.

[tie_list type=”checklist”]

38mm model: 38.6 x 33.3 x 10.5mm
42mm model: 42.0 x 35.9 x 10.5mm

[/tie_list]

Here’s how a 38mm Apple Watch looks on Karen’s wrist:

[/padding]

[tie_full_img][/tie_full_img]

[tie_index]Build quality[/tie_index]

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

Apple Watch review: Build quality

Speaking of the materials the watch is made from, there are three options: aluminium for the Watch Sport, stainless steel for the Watch, and 18-carat gold for the Watch Edition. The Watch and Watch Edition come with sapphire screens, the Sport version with ion-x glass.

[/padding]

We love the look and feel of the Apple Watch. As we mentioned above, it looks a bit like a shrunk-down version of the original iPhone, and it’s reassuringly robust – after almost a year with the Watch, there no scratches on the body or screen, although the brighter of our two Sport Band straps is starting to look a bit grubby.

Apple doesn’t recommend dunking your Apple Watch first-gen in water. While the watch is rated as water-resistant to the IPX7 standard, which should mean it will survive in water up to a depth of 1 metre for up to 30 minutes, Apple describes it as “splash- and water-resistant but not waterproof”. So it’s ok to use it in the shower – as Apple’s CEO Tim Cook apparently does – but it’s not to be taken swimming.

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]Having said that, plenty of reckless reviewers have done exactly that, and we’ve yet to hear anyone complain that their watch was damaged by the experience. We don’t recommend taking the risk, and you obviously won’t have a leg to stand on with Apple if something does go wrong since they’ve been careful to only claim it’s water-resistant. But it appears that yes, the Apple Watch is waterproof.[/padding]

[tie_index]Straps[/tie_index]

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

Apple Watch review: Straps

While we’re on the subject of straps, which one should you pick to go with your beautiful Apple Watch?

[/padding]

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]There are a wide collection of straps to choose from, including: Link Bracelet, Sport Band, Leather Loop, Classic Buckle, Modern Buckle, Milanese Loop and more recently, Nylon band and Hermes straps.

The Leather Loop, Classic Buckle, Leather Loop, Modern Buckle

The Leather Loop, Classic Buckle, Leather Loop, Modern Buckle, Woven Nylon and Sport Band options are offered in multiple colour choices while the Milanese Loop and Link Bracelet are only available in two colours. The Sport Band comes in 22 different colours including black, white, pink, yellow, blue, grey, lime green, lavender, antique white, stone and midnight blue, for example.

[/padding]

[tie_index]Screen[/tie_index]

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

Apple Watch review: Screen

While doing our best to extend the watch’s battery life, we wanted to force-quit some apps and found the method of doing so deeply counterintuitive.

Returning to the screen, the resolution depends on the watch you choose. The resolution of the screen on the 38mm Apple Watch (which measures 1.32 inches diagonally) is 272×340 while the 42mm model offers 312×390 on a screen that measures 1.5 inches. Both models, therefore, offer a pixel density of 326 pixels per inch, or ppi.

In both cases, the Apple Watch screen is officially rated (or perhaps we should say branded) as Retina-quality, and our subjective experience with it has been great. It’s sharp and vividly colourful and we’ve yet to notice any pixellation.

The touchscreen aspects work terrifically too: it’s highly responsive, and we found we tend to fall back on old habits, swiping through screens whenever possible by using the touchscreen even if a scrolling option is available via the Digital Crown. It ought to be as easy to quit apps and glances as it is on the iPhone – but it isn’t. To quit an app you have to press and hold the side button, and then do the same again. Nobody is going to stumble on that by accident.

[/padding]

[tie_index]User interface[/tie_index]

Apple Watch review: User interface

[tie_full_img][/tie_full_img]

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

Apple’s design expertise is only a small part of what makes the Apple Watch stand out. Another factor in its favour is the user interface. The problem many current smartwatches have is that the UI is packed onto a tiny display and you need to manipulate those tiny visual elements using your fingers, which are inevitably bigger than the elements you’re trying to touch.

Below we examine Apple’s method for controlling the user interface, and the software you can expect to see on the Apple Watch.

[/padding]

[tie_index]Using screen[/tie_index]

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

Apple Watch review: Using the Apple Watch screen

One way to use the Watch is via the screen. You can scroll around the screen, tap on items to select them or press harder to get more options – akin to using right click on a mouse. Various gestures bring up other elements of the operating system. For example, Glances are accessed by swiping up on the watch face.

[/padding]

[tie_full_img][/tie_full_img]

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

There’s also Apple’s Force Touch technology that determines how hard you are pressing the Watch and will act accordingly. There is a difference between a hard press and a simple tap. (We discuss Force Touch in more detail below.)

[/padding]

[tie_index]Performance[/tie_index]

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

Apple Watch review: Speed/performance

One possible weakness of the Apple Watch – depending on how demanding your standards are when it comes to wearable tech – could be its all-around speed. Numerous reviewers have found the interface sluggish in use and noticed a delay before certain actions.[/padding]

Update 8 September 2016: It should be noted that the below section is based on the original watch and not the Series 1 or 2 which feature a 50 percent faster processor.

As with many aspects of this product, experiences have varied among the team, and it’s likely that day-to-day performance is influenced by factors such as apps and Glances currently running. It’s rare to find an app that’s near-instantaneous to respond, as they’ll open quickly but will often hang, leaving us staring at a black loading screen; and syncing processes with the iPhone, over a Bluetooth connection, can be sluggish.

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

We’ve also found, as have many users, that third-party apps can sometimes be slow to start up. watchOS 2 looked to speed up third-party apps by allowing them to run natively on the Apple watch, but as we mention in our watchOS 2 section of the review below, we still find apps pretty sluggish and we often give up and end up using our iPhone apps instead.

[/padding]

[tie_index]Digital Crown[/tie_index]

Apple Watch review: Using the Digital Crown

Apple’s solution to the navigation problem is to use something that has always been a feature of watches in a new way.

The dial on the side of the watch – its proper name is the crown – has been brought into the 21st century and turned into what Apple calls the Digital Crown. This Digital Crown solves the problem of swiping through icons on a minuscule display.

[padding top=”0″ bottom=”0″ right=”5%” left=”5%”]

Below the Digital Crown is another button. This button takes you to the home screen and to the Friends app, from which you can contact your friends (more on that below). This button is also used when you’re paying for things using Apple Pay (more on that below, also).

[tie_index]Battery life[/tie_index]

Apple Watch review: Battery life

Apple claims that on a typical day, with typical usage, you should get 18 hours of battery life from the Apple Watch. In other words, you ought to be able to get through a whole day, but that will be about it: expect to charge it every night. (Which, incidentally, rules out being able to sleep with the watch on – which is likely to be a disappointment to developers of sleep-related apps.)

In fact, your use may vary. Apple’s ‘typical day’ included a half-hour workout, but if you exercise more than that you may use up the battery quicker – in Apple’s tests, the battery lasted 6.5 hours during a workout (so you should at least be able to run that marathon without running out of battery). If you use the Apple Watch to play music you will also find that to be a bit of a battery hog. Apple got 6.5 hours of audio playback out of the test device before it ran out of power.

[/padding]

[tie_index]Pricing and availability[/tie_index]

Apple Watch review: Apple Watch UK price

Pricing varies depending on the watch and strap you choose. For more information about Watch prices, read our Apple Watch buying advice.

The Apple Watch price starts at £259 in the UK; that’s for the 38mm Apple Watch Sport with a plastic band, and £299 for the 42mm version. The stainless steel Apple Watch starts at £479 and the newer Apple Watch Hermes starts at £1000, while the 18-carat gold Apple Watch Edition starts at an eye-watering £8,000.

OUR VERDICT

The Apple Watch isn’t the first ever smartwatch, and it doesn’t really do anything rival products don’t do. But what it does do, it does as well as any smartwatch out there, thanks to Apple’s user interface expertise. It’s a slick device to use, although you should be warned that it isn’t completely intuitive, particularly at first. With use it will become more familiar and user-friendly.

The post After all is said and done, more is said than done appeared first on PHPFOREVER.

Announcing the Candidates .NET Foundation Election 2021

.NET Foundation Election 2021 is Here

We’re pleased to announce that the 2021 election process has begun!

The Nomination Committee has reviewed the candidates who submitted a nomination and came up with the following slate.

Here are the candidates for the 2021 .NET Foundation Board:

David McCarter
David Whitney
Dixin Yan
Frank Arkhurst Odoom

Javier Lozano*
Kevin Avignon
Mattias Karlsson
Mitchel Sellers
Pedro Henrique De Souza Jesus
Rob Prouse

*current director seeking re-election

Today kicks off the campaign period. There are three open seats on the board that need to be chosen.

Voting begins on September 13th. The voting will be on OpaVote and members will receive a private link to vote before voting begins.

Members in good standing, with dues paid (or waived), are eligible to participate. You can check your membership status here
The .NET Foundation Board is responsible for setting direction and executing our mission. The Foundation exists for you, so your participation is key!

.NET Foundation Board of Directors Election 2021: Results!

The results are in!

We are pleased to announce the winners of the 2021 Board Election, but before we do, we have a bit of news to announce.

Rodney Littles has decided to resign from the Foundation. Rodney has been a board member and the chair for the Technical Steering Group for the past year. We wish him all the best as he refocuses on his personal life. The bylaws of the Foundation state that the existing board should appoint a replacement for his seat. We felt with the election taking place as he sent his resignation, it would be fitting for our community of members to have a say in that 4th seat.

The newly elected board seats will be filled by:

Mattias Karlsson

Frank Odoom

Rob Prouse

Javier Lozano (re-elected)

We understand there has been concern and conversations around the lack of gender and cultural diversity in the slate of candidates. There is work that needs to be done within ourselves and the .NET Community to be more inclusive without excluding the work of those that are trying to make a difference for everyone. That work will begin this week as the new board will meet with the existing board to start the hand-off process.

Thanks to everyone who was nominated, ran, and contributed to the success of this election!

Welcome BenchmarkDotNet

Today, I have the pleasure of welcoming BenchmarkDotNet into the .NET Foundation. It’s a powerful cross-platform library which helps you to measure the performance of your source code with the high level of precision even when you are working with very rapid operations. It’s already used by a number of great .NET projects, with a growing community of contributors.

In this guest post, Andrey Akinshin from the BenchmarkDotNet project explains more and how to get started.

— Martin

BenchmarkDotNet

Benchmarking is really hard (especially microbenchmarking), you can easily make a mistake during performance measurements. BenchmarkDotNet will protect you from the common pitfalls (even for experienced developers) because it does all the dirty work for you: it generates an isolated project per each benchmark method, does several launches of this project, run multiple iterations of the method (include warm-up), and so on. Usually, you even shouldn’t care about a number of iterations because BenchmarkDotNet chooses it automatically to achieve the requested level of precision.

It’s really easy to design a performance experiment with BenchmarkDotNet. Just mark your method with the [Benchmark] attribute and the benchmark is ready. Want to run your code on CoreCLR, Mono, and the Full .NET Framework? No problem: a few more attributes and the corresponded projects will be generated; the results will be presented at the same summary table. In fact, you can compare any environment that you want: you can check performance difference between processor architectures (x86/x64), JIT versions (LegacyJIT/RyuJIT), different sets of GC flags (like Server/Workstation), and so on. You can also introduce one or several parameters and check the performance on different inputs at once.

BenchmarkDotNet helps you not only run benchmarks but also analyze the results: it generates reports in different formats and renders nice plots. It calculates many statistics, allows you to run statistical tests, and compares results of different benchmark methods. So it doesn’t overload you with data, by default BenchmarkDotNet prints only the really important statistical values depending on your results: it allows you to keep summary small and simple for primitive cases but notify you about additional important area for complicated cases (of course you can request any numbers manually via additional attributes).

BenchmarkDotNet doesn’t just blindly run your code – it tries to help you to conduct a qualitative performance investigation.

BenchmarkDotNet is already a full-featured benchmark library for different kinds of performance research, and many developers already use it. But it continues to actively develop, a lot of nice features are coming and are on the roadmap. Feedback is welcome: if you have an idea how to improve the library (or if you wish to implement it), the team is waiting for you on GitHub!

Andrey Akinshin, Project Lead on BenchmarkDotNet