So far, we have simply introduced the FMX framework, exploring both the surroundings in which an FMX application should live and the context the technology was created in.
In this section, we will discuss how the FMX framework performs in the context that it is intended to be used in (the development of cross-platform applications). We'll consider some topics representing the strengths and weaknesses of the FMX approach. This should help you understand where in the big picture of multi-platform development tools we are.
At first, consideration is given to the available continuity from VCL to FMX. At first sight, you can appreciate the fact that an experienced Delphi (VCL) developer has been provided with a chance to reuse part of their knowledge and experience while moving from a single (very specifically, Windows) platform development environment to a multi-platform (and/or cross-platform). The existence of FMX has enabled all those Delphi developers to not have to start from scratch (possibly doing this multiple times, one for each platform to address) while making their first steps into new scenarios (such as mobile platforms).
This is far better than having completely different toolsets, especially if you are building a project supporting multiple platforms and also if you are a developer of several projects targeting different platforms. Today, we are starting to diffusely see software (applications) as the backbone of industries and, more generally, today, everything seems to have a somewhat software core to it, with the IT industry gaining more and more consideration and respect. At the same time, this means a huge increase in the demand for software with sustainable costs in terms of money and delivery time, with more and more demanding quality factors.
As we already addressed earlier in this chapter, enabling existing developers (with their valuable experience baggage) to cover new platforms instead of having to raise new (inexperienced) developers, from scratch, on each new platform is obviously a game-changer opportunity that we should try to catch as much as possible. Just to name a clear example where this whole system shines, think about the data access components (and their knowledge) you can naturally use within applications of both the FMX and VCL frameworks. Every business application I’ve seen in 15 years (and counting) of consulting in the IT world had some data-centric part somewhere (often, the most relevant one). We will give an overview of this topic in Chapter 4, Discovering Lists and Advanced Components, covering FireDAC utilization within FMX applications.
Another strength factor FMX has is the possibility to add support for new platforms on the go. Just before the Apple iPhone launch (2007), nobody would have ever guessed that Nokia’s Symbian OS would become a dead platform so quickly. The story of Microsoft mobile operating systems has also been subject to lots of change and with some bumps (think about Nokia acquisitions and Nokia X device families that are commercialized by Microsoft but with a custom Android OS on board).
Generally speaking, the mobile world has seen some new entries and some unexpected passings for a while. Today, we can reasonably think of the mobile world as having a substantial split between Android and iOS but, at the same time, we should always consider the fact that a new platform may arise tomorrow. Even though it is not really a new platform, the recent addition of Linux as a target platform for FMX GUI applications has been seen as a new conquest by the whole Delphi community. This addition has been possible thanks to the new implementation provided by a third-party vendor named KSDev (embodied by the original FMX authors, Eugene Kryukov and Alexey Sharagin) and the effort by Embarcadero to deliver a new compiler for the Linux (Intel) platform.
Together with the LLVM compiler technology, the inner architecture of the FireMonkey framework obviously is responsible for this accomplishment, which puts Delphi in a position to build effective UI applications on up to five different platforms, namely, Microsoft Windows (32-bit and 64-bit), Apple OS X, Apple iOS (and its simulator), Google Android, and Linux (Ubuntu and RedHat are officially supported by the compiler). From a strategic point of view, knowing the set of tools your IDE uses to actually build your applications is extensible (from the compiler to the UIs, including RTL and main DAC libraries) has a lot of value, especially if you are building large applications or you have an estimated lifespan for your projects of more than a couple of years.
Obviously, there are also some drawbacks. There always are, especially in such a high-demanding and dynamic environment made of moving targets (such as mobile platforms). The first obstacle is caused by the high-level abstraction I have described in this chapter. That is, Embarcadero’s whole cross-platform solution is made of abstractions of services and functionalities where the construction of the UI is one of the most relevant in terms of the user experience (more and more of a central success factor for every piece of software out there, from the user's (and customer's) point of view). The key strengths of FMX (such as styles and the ability to perfectly mimic a native application's visual and interactive pattern fundamentals) should strongly mitigate the distance from the top of the abstraction and the bare metal on the ground, but this still remains a challenge.
The speed in innovation, especially in mobile platforms, we are perceiving today can be hard to handle and integrate into a highly abstracted framework. Embarcadero has some opportunities to solve (or at least mitigate) these problems and the first example in this direction has been the introduction of the ControlStyle property, with the platform option to let FMX use a corresponding native control where the developer decides it is worth doing so. This means that if the underlying OS has some advanced features (think about a device-wide orthographic corrector or an advanced dictation system) built into native controls, even cross-platform applications built in FMX can rely on them and not lack behind other apps.
In the same area, relatively young mobile platforms are continuously evolving, trying to improve their performance and so the FMX framework (and Embarcadero’s ecosystem of technologies) will have to improve over time to catch up with native applications (whatever native applications might mean—you should read native here as in non-cross-platform applications).
There is a strange point in my mind and it isn’t so easy to state whether it is a strength or a weakness, that is, Embarcadero is a relatively small player compared with Apple, Google, and Microsoft. This means they obviously have to strive to follow the major decisions of those big players (who all make money from things other than developer tools) and at the same time, it means they have a chance to be more agile and less extremist than them. They have the opportunity to provide a common path to all platforms (a very ambitious goal).
