I've been working with JFX since launch and I'm comfortable with it being just beside the current Java.
But I can't say I've ever bought into the whole 'OMG we need a better Java now!' argument, I mean if you want a hammer, buy a hammer, don't complain your screw driver should be more hammer like. The ability to fall from JFX back to Java however is very, very useful, there are missing features in JFX at the moment and the ability to fall back to general purpose Java libraries to work around the problem is fantastic. There is probably a little more glue needed to make it entirely interoperable, but its more than workable. On that basis, Flex should be worried. On Dec 24, 11:38 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > I love what I see here. > > Has anyone thought about Java FX being the start of Java.next? > > On Dec 23, 12:30 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > As it seems to be alternative languages week at the Java Posse > > googlegroups... > > > Have a gander at this:http://ociweb.com/jnb/jnbDec2008.html > > > A very nicely written introduction to JavaFX Script. As far as simple > > languages go with powerful syntax sugar, this is impressive. > > > NB: Joe, JFX is very property-compatible. You can bind things together > > very simply, and partly because of that, animations are very simple as > > well. Adding reactions to the modification of any variable is also > > made quite simple.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
