Talk:Flutter (software)

License

missing license information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB08:8805:CB00:DEEF:9FF:FE59:E071 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup-PR

I've made a bunch of changes to the article to remove of lot of the PR-like language. I still think the history section needs improvement although I think it is OK to remove the PR label from the article by now. 65.242.132.98 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Advertising

The bang at the end of:

 * On May 6, 2020, the Dart SDK in version 2.8 and the Flutter in version 1.17.0 were released, where support was added to the Metal API, greatly improving performance on iOS devices (approximately 50%), new Material widgets, in addition new network tracking tools and much more!

... makes me think that this is really marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.182.133 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Introduce concepts

This article is a bit terse. An introduction in this article to concepts used in Flutter, like bloc (noun) (from the pattern BLoC (Business Logic Components)), cubit, and streams (in this context), would be nice.

--Mortense (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello World example is crap

It's written so that it works and has lots of comments, but the point of a Hello World program is that it is something the newbie programmer can type up in a few seconds to see that the package has been installed and works and produces results. It is something that builds confidence. Not a chunk out of the language textbook, with perfectly formed comments and variable names and so on. It is the bare minimum. --Pete (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I deleted this section entirely because:

1. This section has no sources and is not verifiable

2. This section looks like a slightly modified copy-paste of step 1 from this guide.

3. Wikipedia is not a guide

I don't see how this section could be useful to a reader, since there are better guides online. For all these reasons, I deleted this section. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert my change. Also, please comment below how you plan to improve this section.

My change for your review or revert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flutter_%28software%29&type=revision&diff=1012515994&oldid=1011862165

Inviting Sarbagyastha (author of this section) to comment.

Anton.bersh (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

About Miquido blog

I removed two sources linking to Miquido.com blog because they appeared not in-depth (first one) and promotional for the company (second one). If you want to add them, let's discuss the possibility of their use here. Please don't revert edits without any explanation even in the edit summary. Courtesy ping for Lexidus. Thanks, Anton.bersh (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's Lexidus here - I apologize for my discourtesy, I am a fairly new Wikipedia editor. I am wondering if removing the CTA at the end of the 2nd link (talking about Flutter 2.0) would make it a viable resource? In my opinion, its' take on Flutter 2.0 is fairly in-depth.

Thanks, Lexidus (talk)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for responding here. Wikipedia can be hard to edit properly, partially due to complex rules about editing, partially because of limitations of the Wikimedia software. I hope you will find this general advice helpful:

1. Please sign your comments on talk pages by placing four tildes after your comments like this: ~~~~. Four tildes are preferred over three tildes because other users might need the comment timestamp for some reason.
2. Please use the edit summary field to explain why you make changes, especially if you think another editor is likely to object. Reverts almost always indicate disagreement, so explaining reverts is even more important than explaining regular edits.
3. If you want to learn more about editing Wikipedia, the Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure explains some rules in a game format.

Back to your question: what do you mean by "removing the CTA at the end of the 2nd link"? Do you have the ability to edit Miquido blog?

Thanks, Anton.bersh (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for linking to the resources, it will be really helpful. I have the ability to contact the author of the blog post directly and she might consider making the edit. But this is a broader question too, what do you think about linking to companies' blog articles that don't have a promotional quality?

With regards, Lexidus (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lexidus. Promotional content is only one kind of non-reliable source. I would recommend reading WP:RS to learn about all the attributes expected of a reliable source on Wikipedia. In general, Wikipedia does not consider blogs reliable sources. There are some exceptions (like "Krebs on Security" about computer security, "Mozilla Hacks Blog" about web development, Cloudflare blog about HTTP and other network protocols), but those are treated as reliable because they have a very long history of reliable reporting on very specific subjects and are widely regarded as reliable outside of Wikipedia. Since this is a somewhat subjective matter, I invite you to ask other more experienced users at Wikipedia Teahouse. The main problems I see with this blog are:

1. It is self-published.
2. It is not used by other people in the field.
3. It lacks general focus: this blog has some generic business advice and marketing advice and technical advice on a random-looking selection of technologies (Kotlin, Web, React Native) all in one place.
4. (subjective) When I look at this blog, it triggers lots of tiny pet-peeves for me. Incomplete dates (the publication year is missing), most articles contain more subjective and unsupported claims than objective supported coverage.
5. Lack of in-depth coverage not available in another less conflicted source.

I hope that helps! Sincerely, Anton.bersh (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer Anton.bersh!

1. I agree, this blog is self-published, but so are a lot of other resources on similar pages. As an example - this is given as a resource on the React Native Wikipedia Page ::::: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/learning-react-native/9781491929049/ch01.html. It is certainly a self-published blog article + there’s also a CTA at the end of it “Get Learning React Native now with O’Reilly online learning.” (which goes back to your previous argument).
   1. I have one more question here. If there is a Wikipedia article about a given company, is linking to the company's blog a good practice? As an example, to sty in the field - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netguru - there are a lot of references to the company’s blog, which bear the exact same qualities as the ones mentioned by you (given that I’d agree on the “tiny pet-peeves” one).
2. What makes you think that it isn’t used by other people in the field? If a given company is well-known as an expert in a given domain (Flutter in this example) then it’s not controversial to assume that other people rely on it. This blog was chosen as a point of reference because Miquido is in fact one of the most renowned companies when it comes to Flutter (https://clutch.co/developers/flutter/leaders-matrix - Ik there are many more rankings, but just to point out to one). Tbh there aren’t that many companies specializing in this field, so I found it natural to link to their blog. What is more they were featured by Google on Flutter Live 2018 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ACWeGGBP4E. Their Flutter app (Topline) is showcased on the official flutter website - https://flutter.dev/showcase.
3. Indeed, as a software development company this blog has a variety of topics, even going beyond the technologies you’ve mentioned (f.e. business related), but so are the resources in the React Native Wikipedia Article. Take a look at this one (number 12), from Mashable (a news website that covers a plethora of different subject matters) - https://mashable.com/2012/09/11/html5-biggest-mistake/?europe=true.
4. Well that’s subjective, as you mentioned, so I am not going to touch upon this topic :D.
5. This is kinda subjective too, I thought of this resource as fairly in-depth as it covers the topic of the Flutter 2.0 update quite well.

Once more - thanks a lot for keeping in touch with me, this community seems to be really wholesome.

I am looking forward to your answer!

Kind regards, Lexidus (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

O'Reilly is a well known publisher of books - the link you offer is to a preview chapter of 'Learning React Native'. It is not a blog, and is not self published. As to a company's own blog, see WP:ABOUTSELF. An article subject's own words can be used for noncontroversial information. I agree with Anton.bersh, Miquido should not be used as a source. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Lexidus! First, let's address some of your general concerns:

• Yes, Netguru article is problematic. (Turns out, some other user already raised this concern on Talk:Netguru over a year ago!) If you are interested, you could try to improve that article. The quality of Wikipedia articles can vary dramatically for multiple reasons. Almost all Wikipedia content is written by unpaid benevolent volunteers, and paid editing is strongly discouraged. Therefore there are almost no "full-time" and "professional" editors. Some Wikipedia volunteers are inexperienced; some are literally middle schoolers just learning rigorous academic writing style. Some editors, unfortunately, have lesser motives: they might try to promote a subjective view they hold, harass someone, or vandalize Wikipedia. There are mechanisms and Wikipedia projects/grous which try to solve a particular problem, but some things can slip by. Therefore to be as objective as possible, Wikipedia contributors try to evaluate every page separately against sets of objective guidelines, so each article must stand on its own merit. Most of the time it is not valid to compare one article to another.
• No, O'Reilly is a very prominent publisher of technicals books about programming. Every book is written by an expert in the field and then reviewed by technical writing staff; most books get updated editions, just like college textbooks.

Back to Miquido blog:

1. As mentioned above, comparing Miquido blog to sources from other articles is fruitless. Miquido blog is fundamentally a WP:BLOG, which is problematic because it is self-published.
2. The examples you linked still do not show anyone using Miquido blog content as a reference. It's good (for Miquido) that Miquido is trusted as a company and some of its products are showcased by others, but Miquido apps are not related to Miquido blog. Based on predominantly non-technical blog content, most likely, Miquido developers are never writing on Miquido blog.
3. As mentioned above, you are very much welcome to find a better source for React Native article, but WP:OTHER is not a valid argument.
4. Still, source without a publication date, and even the author's name is very weird. I'm not even sure a citation without an author can even be considered a citation per WP:CITE.
5. I mean that using Miquido blog as a source does not improve the article in any meaningful manner. So far, Miquido blog was used as a reference in two sentences which were already adequately supported by better sources. If there are very many sources that could support a statement, Wikipedia editor is expected to pick a few at most which he/she deems "strongest". Link for convenience

Once again, nothing that I write is a final verdict, you are always welcome to ask another Wikipedian for an opinion, however, frankly, I think you are overly invested into this one source and that one edit. Editors have disagreements all the time and constantly correct each other's work to make Wikipedia better.

Sincerely, Anton.bersh (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

So what is it really?

Yeah, you can develop UI with it, but you can develop UI with web browsers, with widget toolkits, with gaming software libraries, with windowing systems and also in the terminal with ANSI coding. The question remains: what is it? The links in the article are not really helpful on what it is. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's an SDK. I don't understand? Nintendo2000 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation broken

In the infobox, in "stable version number", it complains about " Error: Unable to display the reference properly. See the documentation for details." Treeplate (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)