How important is platform independence?

Question

A lot of software frameworks, languages, platforms claim platform independence and boast it as a selling feature. However, I have failed to understand how could this such an important feature. For example, Java is said to be platform independent - but why should I care when I know that my webapp is going to run on only one platform? Is the overhead of making an application platform independent really worthwhile?

Answer 1

For webapps it mostly isn't an issue as they by definition are almost "platform independent". I mean, users of application mostly aren't tied to any particular platform.

For desktop apps it is a question of your potential client base. If you think that you will benefit from multi platform targeting, then it's worth to make your application platform independent, otherwise better stay away from it :)

Answer 2

If you're developping only server-side, you probably don't need to take care of it at the moment. However, you might be extremely happy down the road to find that you can run your application seamlessly on another OS if the needs arise (for instance, if asked for by a client, or if you have specific performance/fonctionnalities needs).

For a client-side application, platform-independence means a lot less work to be able to ship for Mac and Linux, and yes, that might be worth it.

Answer 3

For a web application that only you are going to use, the only point of being platform-independent is that it makes it easier on you if you change servers down the line.

Of course, languages like Java are used for a lot more than web applications - people write standalone(-ish) desktop programs in them as well, and for those it's a lot more useful to be platform independent. Sun can do the work of making sure Java runs on a whole bunch of different computers, and every Java application developer shares the benefits of that work for free, basically. It's especially beneficial to developers of mobile phone applications (not the iPhone or Android, but good old basic cell phones): writing different code for every different phone out there would be a nightmare. The fact that many phones include a JRE to run applications makes the developers' jobs easier.

Answer 4

If you know your app is going to run on only one platform you shouldn't care - you should evaluate the framework using the same criteria as every other framework on your target platform.

Answer 5

This of course depends on the application in question. If you know that the application is going to run on only one platform, then there's obviously no reason to require it to be platform independent. On the other hand, if you are building an application that is supposed to be usable for, say, next 15 years, how can you know that the platform you choose will even exist then? It's hard to predict the future, and therefore making your app platform independent gives you one headache less.

Platform independence doesn't necessarily imply overhead. Rather, it implies good programming practices; if you make your app orthogonal to the platform, then changing the platform is a breeze.

Sometimes it's impossible to avoid platform-dependent function calls, for example because of having to directly communicate with some hardware device at low level. Even then it's possible make the app "almost platform independent". Instead of scattering the platform dependent things everywhere, wrap them all strictly into one class/package/whatever. Then you need to change just that one unit in order to translate your app to another platform.

Answer 6

You almost answer your own question. Platform independence is only important if you want your application to work on multiple platforms. If you don't, then that's one less thing to worry about.

Take OpenOffice or Firefox for example. You can use those on every major platform. That's important to them because they want everyone to be able to use them and have the same experience no matter what their OS is.

If your project is smaller and doesn't really need to be on every platform, then don't worry about it. It's really a judgment call for each program you develop.

Answer 7

but why should I care when I know that my webapp is going to run on only one platform?

You shouldn't. If you know that you are going to run on only one platform, platform independence is not very relevant to you.

But you are not equal to all the population of potential users. Other people will want to target pc's in multiple platforms.

It's like having a version in Chinese. If you're going to sell only in English speaking coutries, it's irrelevant. If you're trying to sell in China, it might help.

Answer 8

we develop a Java B2B application that is Unix only, but works on all Unix flavors (where java is available).

the advantage to have a multiplatform application is that our customers sometimes have knowledge in Linux, sometimes in Solaris, sometimes in FreeBSD, ...

this way we can adapt to the customer and not force them to use one specific platform

Answer 9

Theoretically, platform independence helps you avoid the so-called "vendor lock" while at the same time giving you a broader reach and potentially more customers.

In practical terms, you should evaluate your target audience and do good business calculation on whether the profit potential of being able to deliver to multiple platforms outweighs the cost of adopting a platform independent framework. After all, the framework might claim to work the same on all platforms, but you will have to verify that claim. Not to mention that no framework solves all problems for delivering an application, like deployment, configuration, centralized management, updating/upgrading and so on.

Of course, if your product is a server-based and the end user is going to consume it through an HTTP agent, you don't have to worry about it. For the most part and as long as you stay in the [relatively] safe realm of HTML, JavaScript and Flash.

Answer 10

For example, Java is said to be platform independent - but why should I care when I know that my webapp is going to run on only one platform?

The fact that it's not advantageous to you doesn't mean that it's of no benefit. I'm sure many Java developers enjoy the fact that they don't have to recompile their application for each platform (hence it's a selling point). A web app that makes use of Active X exclusively for certain components will face more road blocks if, in the future, other platforms also become of interest.

Is the overhead of making an application platform independent really worthwhile?

Depends on what you mean by overhead. If it's a good framework, there might be minimal overhead. Of course if other platforms are of no interest to you, then yes, it's an overhead. However, the fact is that unlike a decade or so ago, more platforms are starting to matter these days (at least for web and desktop application). So, the overhead could be worth it in the long run.

Answer 11

Platform independence is a desirable feature for software vendors because they invest a large amount of money developing a modern, sophisticated application so they don't want to artificially cut out any market segment. They want to sell their baby to as many organizations as possible.

Software vendors try to convince IT departments that platform independence is a good thing because it avoids vendor lock-in. I'm sure that is importance, in theory; however, in practice most IT departments self impose vendor lock-in with their attitudes, usually concerning a particular technology vendor of high prominence.

Answer 12

One field where cross-platform is an issue even for the desktop applications is software for the scientific community. From my experience, the desktops in the academy are much more heterogeneous than the ones you see at home, offices etc.

Answer 13

Platform independence is not much of an issue when you target a certain platform but it is when you write an application. There are libraries and frameworks out there which solve about any problem you might encounter. Only you can't use them unless they have been written for your target platform.

Which is why it is usually a good thing for a library or framework to be as platform independent as possible because every developer on the planet is a possible client. In the next step, it makes it more simple for application developers to write code which runs on any platform. In the last years, we have seen the user numbers of Mac and Linux grow steadily. So if you can sell to them for little additional cost, why not?

Answer 14

"Platform independence" can mean different things to different people. For example, is "Windows XP" a different platform than "XP 64", or Vista, or Windows 7? It depends upon whether you write application software or drivers, and on what pre-installed libraries and services you depend on.

In the most general sense, no application can be truly platform-independent - you won't expect to run a web application on the embedded Linux in your toaster, or on a 16-MB Windows 3.11 machine.

But software frameworks that have platform independence as an architectural target are generally better prepared when your platform changes, and in any long-lived project, it will change, if only because hardware will be replaced every 3-5 years, and new hardware often comes with new OS versions.

Answer 15

You always pay for Flexibility.

Always.

Deciding if the cost is worth it (the pay offs can be very high) is entirely dependent on the needs of the individual/company at hand but there is always a cost. Many of these are implicitly assumed, for example:

Most people code to a file system agnostic[1] api rather than one assuming a particular implementation and this choice is correct so often as to be a reasonable default choice in the absence of any particular requirement in that area.

Nonetheless it is sometimes worth revisiting your core assumptions every so often simply to know what they are

[1] at least to the level of saying it's a tree with path separators '/' as opposed to talking ext3, NTFS, ReiserFS, etc...