Blog Post

When you have something to say, silence is a lie - and tyranny feeds on lies.

 

Hybrid Software Architectures: Complexity Instead of Cost Savings?

Large software projects often need to be divided into modules that can be developed independently by different teams. This modular development presents significant challenges, especially regarding alignment and coordination between teams. Hybrid frameworks like React Native seemingly offer a way to reduce this complexity and save costs by enabling cross-platform development. However, reality shows that a poorly designed architecture often leads to a complexity trap rather than facilitating work.

 

Hybrid Frameworks: Value or More Problems?

React Native is a well-known hybrid framework for mobile app development based on React, one of the most popular web frameworks. Given the abundance of web developers, using React Native to create mobile applications for Android and iOS seems logical. However, transitioning from web to mobile development brings substantial challenges. Navigation, hardware access, and user interface requirements differ greatly from traditional web applications, and inexperienced web developers often hit their limits.

While web developers may perceive a seemingly low entry barrier to mobile development due to their React experience, they are frequently overwhelmed by the specific requirements of mobile platforms like Android and iOS. Handling native device functions, creating mobile user interfaces, and cross-platform navigation are significantly more complex than in web development. Meanwhile, native developers for Android or iOS can certainly learn to work with React Native and utilize this hybrid technology. However, an all-round developer with deep expertise in Android, iOS, web, and React Native is extremely rare.

 

Architectures Mixing Hybrid and Native Development

A central problem in many software projects is the inconsistent use of frameworks. Instead of decisively choosing one technology, hybrid architectures arise, where native Android and iOS development run parallel to hybrid frameworks like React Native. This leads to a confusing mix of Android code, iOS code, React Native code, and possibly even additional React code for web applications. When architects then pressure a team of hybrid developers to develop not just for Android and iOS but also for the web, the complexity reaches a critical point.

The classic example of this architectural issue emerges when a project involves multiple teams developing hybrid modules while also needing to cover web projects. In some cases, the web project is implemented with React, while other teams tackle the same web project with React-Native-Web. This "technology zoo" is further exacerbated by a lack of guidelines and insufficient technical understanding on the part of decision-makers. Instead of simplifying development, complexity increases exponentially as developers must switch between several parallel frameworks and codebases.

 

Exaggerated Expectations for Hybrid Developers

Hybrid developers often find themselves in an extremely difficult position: they are expected to develop cross-platform for both Android and iOS while also being knowledgeable about web technologies like React. These requirements often exceed what is expected of native developers, who only need to focus on one platform. This leads to hybrid developers needing to be proficient in multiple technologies—an expectation that is virtually impossible to meet in practice.

A hybrid developer must possess knowledge of React Native alongside Android, iOS, and often web technologies. At the same time, they must understand and master the interfaces between the various technologies, which makes their work significantly more challenging compared to native developers. While native developers specialize in specific mobile platforms, hybrid developers are expected to have a broader technical expertise—a feat that is typically neither recognized nor adequately compensated.

 

Lack of Architectural Understanding and Technical Expertise

Often, decision-makers and architects lack a clear technical understanding of the real challenges associated with such complex architectures. They see hybrid frameworks like React Native as a way to save costs and address multiple platforms simultaneously without grasping the actual technical requirements. As a result, decisions are made that unnecessarily increase complexity instead of reducing it.

The absence of clear technical guidelines leads to a situation where architects and management mix hybrid and native frameworks, losing track of the overall structure. React Native is intended to serve as a cross-platform solution, but instead of completely replacing native frameworks, the native code remains intact. This creates an additional layer that not only complicates development work but also complicates communication between teams.

 

Hidden Costs and Communication Overhead

The resulting architecture leads to increased communication overhead among teams. Especially in modular systems where hybrid developers must simultaneously collaborate with native Android and iOS teams as well as web teams, significant coordination effort arises. Interfaces must be defined, tested, and adjusted, leading to delays and increased costs that were often not accounted for in the initial planning.

Each new layer of technology and each additional framework raises communication hurdles and leads to significant hidden costs. This contradicts the primary goal of hybrid frameworks, which is to reduce development costs and complexity.

 

A Unified Language for Complex Projects

Another issue with dividing projects among multiple teams is the lack of consistency in code quality. Different teams often have varying development guidelines, which can lead to inconsistent code in the long run. To prevent this, it is crucial to establish clear guidelines from the outset, such as code guidelines and quality assurance measures like linters and code formatters. A unified language across all teams allows modules to be seamlessly handed off between teams without the need for extensive onboarding into completely different coding styles.

 

Frustration and High Turnover Among Developers

The increasing complexity of such projects often leads to frustration among developers. Hybrid developers dealing with an overloaded technology stack face significantly higher workloads than their colleagues focusing solely on native platforms. This is often underestimated in planning and communication, and it is frequently not appropriately compensated financially.

Due to a lack of focus on the actual requirements and oversight of technical hurdles, frustration among developers increases. This leads to higher turnover rates as experienced developers leave the project and new employees are confronted with a nearly impenetrable codebase. This slows down the entire process, further increasing long-term development costs.

 

Conclusion: A Clear Focus on Reduction and Consistency

To avoid the problems of such hybrid architectures, architects and decision-makers must develop a deep understanding of the technical challenges of mobile and hybrid development. A clear focus on simplifying architecture, eliminating unnecessary native codebases, and avoiding a "technology zoo" is essential to reduce complexity.

A unified language through code guidelines and quality assurance measures like linters, type checks, or code formatters, as well as requiring each team to use a consistent platform for their CI/CD pipelines, should be established from the beginning of a project to prevent inconsistencies, error-proneness, and communication problems. By implementing these standardized guidelines, it is ensured that all teams work on the same foundation, significantly easing the integration and maintenance of the software and improving the efficiency of the entire development effort.

Hybrid developers should not be viewed as all-round talents who need to cover multiple platforms and technologies simultaneously. They require clear guidelines and support to perform their work efficiently. Instead of increasing complexity further, hybrid frameworks should consistently be employed as substitutes for native solutions—not as an additional layer that complicates the project.

A conscious, well-thought-out use of hybrid frameworks can indeed lead to a simplification of development. However, without clear architectural principles, a realistic understanding of technical requirements, and appropriate appreciation for hybrid developers, the potential of such frameworks is often inverted.