the only concrete thing you brought up was "duration" as a primitive type.
javafx at first glance seems to me to be a more powerful and clean language than java (closures, pass around functions, data binding, events, properties). I know they put the name "script" at the end, so that takes away from it in some people's eyes :) On Dec 23, 6:35 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > One fantastic maneuvre by JavaFX Script is that they are not at all > interested in fixing problems they run into 'holistically' - in a way > that allows anyone to fix similar problems. Contrast this to e.g. > Scala which is very much its opposite in this sense: In scala, > virtually everything is a library - even foreach loops and the ?? > coalesce operator (including lazy evaluation) can be written as > libraries. > > This is a good principle but it requires vastly more thought and > careful design compared to just finding things that the language needs > to do well and coming up with something specific that solves the > problem nicely. > > Take for example JFX's choice to have 'duration' as one of the > primitive types. That makes absolutely no sense for any language > except something that is specifically designed to allow declarative > GUI programming. > > Using JFX as a springboard for Java.next isn't a good idea though, for > those very reasons. All these fantastic additions don't make all that > much sense when developing a server backend, for example. Still, the > JFX -syntax- and pragmatic outlook can be helpful. JavaFX is also a > bit of a sandbox, because: > > JavaFX is targeted at pseudodevelopers. People who design at least as > much as they program and/or are used to just doing some very simple > flash scripting. And yet it has full blown closures, a static typing > system that does lots of fairly intelligent inferencing, and > properties. If JavaFX is considered to be easy to use and understand > by its target audience, that should make a formidable argument against > the 'please leave java alone / people won't understand closures' > naysayers. > > Exciting stuff. > > On Dec 24, 1:38 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. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
