The modern Android development landscape increasingly relies on two powerful tools: Figma for collaborative UI/UX design and Jetpack Compose for building native UIs declaratively. A crucial step in the development workflow is translating the polished designs from Figma into functional Compose code. But what’s the most effective way to do this?
Several approaches exist, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, impacting development speed, code quality, and flexibility. Let’s compare the primary methods available as of early 2025: Manual Conversion, Assisted Conversion (like the soon-to-be-sunset Relay), and AI Assistance.
1. Manual Conversion: The Foundation
This is the most traditional and widely practiced method. Developers meticulously examine the Figma design specifications (layouts, spacing, typography, colors, components) and manually write the corresponding Jetpack Compose code (Column, Row, Text, Image, custom composables, etc.). They implement state management, interaction logic, and navigation using standard Compose APIs and libraries like Navigation Compose.
Advantages:
- Maximum Control & Flexibility: Developers have complete control over the generated code, ensuring it meets specific architectural patterns, performance requirements, and accessibility standards.
- Optimal Code Quality: Manual implementation allows for clean, idiomatic, and maintainable Compose code tailored to the project’s needs.
- Deep Understanding: This process forces developers to deeply understand both the design and Compose principles, leading to better overall skills.
- Best for Complexity: Handles complex layouts, custom interactions, intricate state management, and dynamic UIs effectively.
Disadvantages:
- Time-Consuming: Can be the slowest method, especially for complex screens or large applications.
- Prone to Human Error: Manual translation can introduce inconsistencies or visual discrepancies compared to the Figma design if not done carefully.
- Requires Strong Compose Skills: Developers need a solid understanding of Jetpack Compose and its best practices.
- Effectiveness for Flows & Navigation: Navigation and complex user flows are implemented entirely by the developer using libraries like Navigation Compose. This ensures the navigation logic is robust and integrated correctly with the app’s architecture.
2. Assisted Conversion: Tools Aiming for Automation (Caution: Relay Sunset)
Tools in this category aim to automate parts of the conversion process, often via plugins or specific workflows. Relay was a prominent example from Google. It allowed designers to annotate Figma components and developers to import them as Compose code packages.
Relay (Sunsetting April 30, 2025):
Original Intent: Relay aimed to streamline the designer-developer handoff for UI components, translating design system elements into reusable Compose code.
Limitations (Even Before Sunset): Often best suited for simpler, static components. Handling complex state, interactions, or highly dynamic layouts usually required significant manual code modification after import. The generated code sometimes wasn’t as clean or idiomatic as manually written code. It introduced its own workflow and potential build complexities.
Current Status (Crucial): Relay is being sunset on April 30, 2025. This means it will no longer be supported or updated, making it not a viable option for new projects and a risk for existing ones. Teams relying on it need to migrate away.
Other Potential Tools (Less Common/Mature for Compose):
While other design-to-code tools exist for different frameworks, mature, widely adopted, and robust Figma-to-Compose converters (beyond Relay) haven’t fully materialized or gained significant traction in the Android community for generating production-ready code.
Advantages (Historically/Conceptually):
- Potential for faster initial component generation, better consistency if the tool’s workflow is strictly followed.
Disadvantages:
- Relay’s sunset makes it obsolete. Other tools are often immature for Compose, generate subpar code, lack flexibility, struggle with complexity, and can lead to vendor lock-in or specific workflow dependencies.
- Effectiveness for Flows & Navigation: These tools typically focus on individual components or screens, not application-wide navigation logic. Navigation still requires manual implementation.
3. AI Assistance: The Intelligent Helper
Developers leverage Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI coding assistants (like Gemini, GitHub Copilot powered by OpenAI’s models, ChatGPT, DeepSeek Coder, etc.) to aid in the conversion process. This can take several forms:
- Pasting descriptions or screenshots of Figma elements and asking the AI to generate corresponding Compose code snippets.
- Asking the AI to refactor existing code or implement specific Compose patterns.
- Using AI code completion features within the IDE (like Studio Bot powered by Gemini in Android Studio).
- Feeding simplified representations of layouts (e.g., textual descriptions of structure and attributes) to the AI.
Determining the single best AI is difficult and context-dependent and it is important to take in account that currently are raising new AI assistant models that overcome others in less than months
- Gemini (especially integrated into Android Studio as Studio Bot): Strong potential due to Google’s focus on Android. Designed to understand Android development contexts, including Compose. Good for generating boilerplate, explaining code, and answering Android-specific questions.
- GitHub Copilot (OpenAI): Widely used, excellent code completion and suggestion capabilities across many languages, including Kotlin/Compose. Learns from the context of your project.
- ChatGPT (OpenAI): Versatile for generating code snippets from descriptions, explaining concepts, and brainstorming approaches. Less integrated into the IDE workflow compared to Copilot or Studio Bot.
- DeepSeek Coder: Specifically trained on vast amounts of code, potentially offering strong code generation capabilities, though perhaps less context-aware of specific Android/Compose nuances compared to Gemini/Studio Bot unless specifically prompted.
For Android development specifically, Gemini (via Studio Bot) has a strategic advantage due to its integration and Google’s focus. GitHub Copilot is a very strong general-purpose contender. The best choice often depends on individual workflow preference, specific task complexity, and current model performance (which evolves rapidly). Experimentation is key.
Strengths:
- Speed Boost: Can significantly accelerate the generation of boilerplate code and simple components.
- Learning Aid: Helps developers understand how to implement certain UI elements in Compose.
- Idea Generation: Can suggest different implementation approaches.
- Reduces Tedium: Automates the writing of repetitive code patterns.
Weaknesses:
- Code Quality Varies: AI-generated code requires careful review and often refactoring to ensure it meets quality standards, follows best practices, and handles state correctly.
- Limited Context/Complexity: AI often struggles with complex layouts, intricate state dependencies, accessibility nuances, and the overall application architecture without very specific guidance. It typically cannot “read” a Figma file directly and understand all its implications.
- Not a Full Solution: AI is an assistant, not a replacement for a developer. It rarely produces production-ready screens directly from a design prompt without significant developer intervention.
- Requires Verification: Always needs human oversight to catch errors, ensure visual fidelity, and implement correct logic.
- Effectiveness for Flows & Navigation: AI can generate boilerplate code for Navigation Compose (e.g., setting up a NavHost), but it cannot design or implement the complex logic of your app’s navigation graph based solely on a Figma design. This still requires manual developer effort and architectural understanding.
Conversion Method Comparison
| Feature | Manual Conversion | Assisted (Relay, plugins) | AI Assistance |
|---|---|---|---|
| UI Accuracy | High (Developer Controlled) | Medium (Tool Dependent) | Medium (Requires Refinement) |
| Code Quality | High (Developer Controlled) | Low-Medium (Often Needs Refactor) | Variable (Requires Review) |
| Flexibility | Very High | Low | Medium (Assists, doesn’t dictate) |
| Speed | Slow | Medium (Initial Setup) – Fast (Plugins) | Fast (for Boilerplate/Snippets) |
| Complexity Handling | Excellent | Poor | Poor-Medium (Best for simple parts) |
| Navigation/Flows | Full Manual Implementation | Not Handled | Boilerplate Help Only |
| Learning Curve | High (Requires Compose Skills) | Medium (Tool Specific) – Low (Plugins) | Low-Medium (Prompting/Review) |
| Current Viability | High (Standard) | None (Sunset Relay) – Low (Plugins) | High (As an Assistant) |
Conclusion: The Hybrid Approach
As of March 2025, with Relay sunsetting, there is no magic bullet for instantly converting complex Figma designs into perfect, production-ready Jetpack Compose applications.
- Manual Conversion remains the most reliable method for achieving high-quality, flexible, and maintainable UI code, especially for complex screens and ensuring correct logic and state management. It’s essential for implementing navigation flows.
- AI Assistance (using tools like Gemini/Studio Bot, Copilot, ChatGPT) is rapidly becoming an indispensable helper. It excels at accelerating development by generating boilerplate, suggesting implementations for simpler components, and reducing repetitive tasks. However, it requires significant developer oversight, review, and refinement.
The most effective strategy today is often a hybrid one:
- Analyze the Figma design thoroughly.
- Manually structure the core screen layouts, navigation, and state management logic in Compose.
- Leverage AI to generate code for simpler, repetitive UI elements (buttons, text fields, basic layouts) or to get initial boilerplate.
- Critically review and refactor any AI-generated code, integrating it into your manual structure.
- Manually implement complex components, interactions, and precise styling details.
Ultimately, developer skill, a deep understanding of Jetpack Compose, and careful attention to detail are paramount, regardless of the tools used. AI can augment this process, but it doesn’t replace the need for expert human developers to bridge the final gap between design and functional, high-quality code.
Source: Read MoreÂ