Developing Adaptive User Interfaces for Mobile Apps Using SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose: A Comparative Study

Not Approved

Relevance and Originality:

The research offers a timely comparison of SwiftUI and Jetpack Compose, two leading frameworks for mobile app development. This topic is highly relevant given the growing need for adaptive user interfaces across platforms, and the paper contributes meaningfully to the field by addressing a key gap in understanding the trade-offs between these frameworks. The emphasis on declarative programming and adaptive design is important for both iOS and Android developers. However, while the comparison is valuable, the article could benefit from exploring more diverse application contexts to further showcase the frameworks' utility across various domains.

Methodology:

The research methodology appears well-structured, particularly in its comparative analysis of the frameworks based on flexibility, performance, and usability. However, the article does not provide enough detail on the specific metrics or criteria used for evaluating performance and ease of development. Including more explicit explanations of how data was collected and analyzed could improve the transparency of the research. Further, the comparison might be strengthened by including additional benchmarks or case studies that test the frameworks in real-world applications.

Validity & Reliability:

The findings presented in the article seem generally robust, with conclusions that align well with the data provided. However, the paper could enhance its reliability by offering more comprehensive data sources and ensuring that its performance tests and ease-of-use assessments are repeated across a broader range of devices and development environments. Without these broader tests, the generalizability of the research may be somewhat limited. Adding more details on potential limitations would also strengthen the paper’s transparency.

Clarity and Structure:

The research article is generally well-organized and clear, with a logical progression from technical differences to performance implications and usability. The structure allows readers to follow the arguments easily. However, some sections could benefit from more concise explanations, as a few parts tend to be overly detailed or repetitive. A more streamlined presentation of ideas could enhance the readability without sacrificing depth. Additionally, more distinct subsections for each framework’s advantages and drawbacks would improve clarity.

Result Analysis:

The analysis of the frameworks is insightful, particularly the focus on the performance and flexibility of each. The paper does a good job of interpreting the data, though the depth of analysis could be improved by providing more quantitative results. The conclusions drawn are valid but could be better substantiated with additional examples or case studies. The discussion could also extend further into how developers might choose one framework over the other based on different project needs or development teams' expertise.