Hi Tom! As a programmer I use SB for prototyping. I think the problem is,
that designers really need a visual UI and CSS editor.
Upcoming web-standards like Web Components and frameworks like Google
Polymer really shine, when it comes to connection between programmers and
designers.
--Benjamin
My two cents would be that maintaining a UI builder is an awful lot of work, while I expect that a
lot of programmers won't be using SB because it always has limitations. Either with complex layouts
or custom controls. Real programmers probably use FXML directly or even just code it in
Java.
Looks like Gluon is the Trolltech equivalent I just wished
for - that was fast :-)
I had a similar thought. Honestly this reminds me a bit more to JGoodies
and the tools around it, but with a lot more. Looks good. Hope that Gluon
takes the mobile ports for JavaFX and SceneBuilder to the next
But what about Xcode GUI design? Android Studio GUI designer? QT Designer? …
Am 05.03.2015 um 09:19 schrieb Tom Eugelink t...@tbee.org:
My two cents would be that maintaining a UI builder is an awful lot of work,
while I expect that a lot of programmers won't be using SB because it always
Like this?
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Efxclipse/Tooling/FXGraph
On 05.03.2015 16:23, Doug Schaefer wrote:
You really want to use a domain specific language that’s easy to read
and write. QML is that. I find XML tags overwhelm the rest of the
text making it hard to understand what’s going on, and
I am running 10.10.1 and the video is a standard h.264 export from FCPX, so
nothing special. I have tried other plain h.264 videos (an iTunes trailer)
with the same result. Have you tried it on Mac?
Another thing that is strange is that files with mov-Extensions do not seem
to be allowed. I had
Or GroovyFX
From: Werner Lehmann lehm...@media-interactive.de
To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net,
Date: 03/05/2015 10:56 AM
Subject:Re: QML vs. FXML
Sent by:openjfx-dev openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net
Like this?
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Efxclipse/Tooling/FXGraph
In general, it’s an argument against writing code in XML. XML was really meant
to be a machine to machine language, to make things like SceneBuilder easier to
write :). People came second.
You really want to use a domain specific language that’s easy to read and
write. QML is that. I find XML
And then there are GroovyFX and ScalaFX, which embed the declarative
UI language in the host language. To me, FXML seems to be just
compensation for the lack of expressiveness in Java.
Tomas
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Doug Schaefer dschae...@qnx.com wrote:
GUI builders are great for
Now, having said that, HTML seems to be pretty popular…
Some folks found even HTML too cumbersome to write and edit, and built
transpilers [1], [2], [3], [4]. They look a bit like QML.
[1] http://jade-lang.com/
[2] http://emblemjs.com/
[3] http://haml.info/
[4] http://slim-lang.com/
--Benjamin
Hi,
First of all by default FXGraph compiles to FXML, that's also the
reason why we currently don't allow you to write event-handlers inside
the FXGraph file (from a technical point of view there's no reason why
we should not be able to do that) but that would render us incompatible
with FXML.
GUI builders are great for prototyping or helping you learn. But when the
application gets complex I keep hearing developers throw them out. They
start getting in the way.
I think if you have a good API and a good declarative UI language, think
QML not FXML, then you may find you don¹t really
Doug,
You said: good declarative UI language, think QML not FXML.
What do you see as the advantages of QML over FXML?
Neil
From: Doug Schaefer dschae...@qnx.com
To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net,
Date: 03/05/2015 10:00 AM
Subject:Re: 8u40 is
13 matches
Mail list logo
