I’ve made a Google Sheet with all the components of App Inventor, AppyBuilder, Makeroid and Thunkable. I will try to keep it up to date when builders change.
7 Likes
New version available.
2 Likes
Thanks for the list Peter. Very useful.
The only other item I need that was not in your list was supported platforms (Android, iOS, Windows phone, etc)
Cheers and thanks again.
Perhaps in need of a new version, to include X thunkable in a different column, to show the difference between X and Classic?
Because canvas is currently not supported in X, and there is no webstring in webviewer; perhaps those differences should be made more obvious.
Thunkable X is a completely different product than the android builder. Even if AI releases it’s iOS version it will be still compatible with the AI designer. X has a lot of different blocks then the original classic one.
1 Like
Are you saying that you want your comparison chart to exclusively cover Android only tools that are directly related to AI?
The point is that the size of the community in Thunkable is probably spread over Classic and X…
The comparison chart is only for the major App Inventor distributions (other builders which are built from the App Inventor codebase). Thunkable X is unique as it isn’t built from App Inventor, it’s built from scratch by the Thunkable team so there isn’t anything to compare it to.
1 Like
As you can see here http://doesappinventorrunonios.com/ you will see that the iOS version of AI will be compatible with the Android version. You will be able to use the same aia files and just choose to export for Android or iOS just like X. But with X you have to start all over again, you can not import an aia from Thunkable Classic into Thunkable X.
I wonder how the users are spread like you say. Some numbers would be wonderful but will probably not be given by the developers.
I fail to see how the comparison of components and the number thereof should somehow imply that only environments based on the original App Inventors could be put in a dashboard.
Evidently, the list would have to be expanded to add the features that are new and unique to X, making the other environments look depleted; but at the same time, it would serve a purpose in helping people visualise what X can and what it currently cannot do. Should the fact that X currently lacks a canvas component, for instance, be kept confidential?
1 Like
Thunkable x has 47 components. Kodular for instance 158. Do you call that depleted?
About AI for iOS: Oh, I am sure it will be compatible.
The problem is a matter of timing, of actually getting it out. Apple can be somewhat demanding and restrictive…
At some point, I was wondering if it would not be faster to get a Mac, learn Xtools and Swift, and re-write the complete app from scratch.
Oh yes Apple is demanding. Still waiting for the next companion app to arrive so i can go on with testing. Every version is a struggle to get on the app store.
No, but many of the components in X do not have a counterpart in others, if one takes into account the various options of components (sizing, margins, etc) which are however only static unfortunately (it would be nice if those were also dynamically controllable). That means opening up gaps in a comparison table that are not there now.
This makes many X components able to morph and emulate several distinct components form the other environments, apparently skewing the result.
I could only, after a quick look, see 5 or 6 compared to Kodular for instance.
And that goes the other way around to.
Point is comparing x with classic is as comparing classic with scratch. They all use blocks but have all a different background.
I could only, after a quick look, see 5 or 6 compared to Kodular for instance.
How about summarizing it all in a table??? 