ahh! Now we have flex, javafx, ajax(n) and silverlight all doing similar things. I think it will come down to who will have the better development environment.
I wonder if silverlight will be able to 'shine' above flex as a solution, web designers are pretty entrenched with macromedia (dreamweaver et al) and microsoft does not have a good track record with designers. The funny thing about swing is that there is a crossover point in your application complexity where it becomes really easy to use. Creating complex tables and trees with custom non/editable fields becomes clearer when following the 'TAO' of swing's MVC design. Its also very easy to encapsulate your custom components as DnD components (beans) that work with your IDE's visual designer (well, in netbeans). I found that ease of use severly lacking in Visual Studio with C#, but that was a while ago, that might have caught up now. I don't have much experience with developing solutions in other GUI toolkit on the desktop, I tend to get too frustrated with them. I be interested to hear other peoples experiences. Brian On 6/20/07, Fritz Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GWT is fantastic... it offers a strongly-typed language and doesn't require > the client to know anything about installations. It does still carry with it > some of the foibles of JS/XHTML, but much less than doing all the JS > yourself. > > I think, though, that in terms of what this article is talking about, you > might just have pointed out the problem yourself... the "ease" of Swing > development? Who else but people who are used to battling Enterprise Java > and expect Web apps to be difficult to write (ie us) would call Swing easy? > It's all relative, of course... > > Another option that is in the mix is M$'s Silverlight. I was at M$ Devdays > in Somerset West a week or two ago, and it does seem like Microsoft are on > to a good thing. Go to > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight > > to find out more, but briefly: Silverlight is a browser-based runtime that > sort of crosses Flash with Applets. Version 2.0 allows you to do scripting > with managed .NET code, and includes things like decent debugging. I haven't > used it, but the guys doing the demos at the conference were putting > together some pretty cool stuff. It was interesting to note that they did > all their demos in Firefox, just to prove that they were taking > cross-browser compatability seriously. > > The irony of it is: we have AJAX solutions now, which are mostly a bunch of > hacks thrown together to solve the problems caused by a lack of > standardisation. Everyone knows it, and so everyone is working on a > solution. In fact, at least three solutions. Separately. So soon we won't > have to choose which browser we use - just which browser plugin runtime. > Isn't it wonderful how progress brings clarity and makes everyone's lives > easier? > > (I realise that users don't have to choose between runtimes, they can simply > download them all. So actually that's not too bad... except possibly here in > SA where bandwidth is at a premium, and downloading that 5MB Silverlight RE > on top of Flash and/or JavaFx is quite an imposition on Internet users). > > Fritz > > > On 6/19/07, Phillip Kruger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > We need a new language, javascript and xml isn't the answer. > > > > What about Google Web Toolkit ? > > The ease of swing development and the result javascript and HTML .... > > > > > > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 15:16, Brian Silberbauer wrote: > > > He does mention flex quite a lot though doesn't he? > > > > > > I'm surprised he did not mention javafx (http://java.sun.com/javafx/), > > > though jre issues still apply. It will be interesting to see if the > > > consumer JRE > > > > (http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/javase/consumerjre/) > will > > > make a difference, but it is slated for 2008.. > > > > > > Anybody looked into javafx? > > > > > > We need a new language, javascript and xml isn't the answer. > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > On 6/19/07, Fritz Meissner < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Did you see his comments about this issue? He claims in the article > that > > > > he started writing it before he signed with them. > > > > > > > > Either way, I think I agree with him about the current AJAX solutions > > > > being built to squeeze the last few drops out of a platform that was > > > > pretty much broken from the start.. whether the solution is Flex or > > > > something else... I don't know. > > > > > > > > Fritz > > > > > > > > On 6/19/07, Mike Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Fritz Meissner wrote: > > > > > > Found this article by Bruce Eckel on his view of the future in > RIA: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://java.sys-con.com/read/333329.htm > > > > > > > > > > Bruce Eckel is a paid Adobe shill, promoting their "Flex" stuff. > > > > > Filter his opinions accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > mike morris :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > http://mikro2nd.net/ > > > > > http://mikro2nd.net/blog/planb/ > > > > > http://mikro2nd.net/blog/mike/ > > > > > > > > > > ----- A day without chillies is a day wasted ------ > > > > > > > > > -- Brian Silberbauer Consultant +27 (0)83 566 2705 skype: brian.silberbauer --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CTJUG Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CTJUG-Forum For the ctjug home page see http://www.ctjug.org.za -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
