Ed wrote: > Why is JavaFX such an extreme departure from Java? At least Flex has > ActionScript and MXML--something that anyone reading this list can > figure out without having to look up and strain to grok.
JavaFX is the fourth attempt at redoing client side Java: the other three are: Netscape's Internet Foundation Classes (IFC) Netscape and Sun's Swing and Java2D IBM/Eclipse's SWT JavaFX is needed now because the others are showing their age. In case you haven't noticed, the native GUI platform vendors Microsoft and Apple also replaced their foundation libraries: Windows WPF replaced Windows Forms, and Apple's Cocoa replaced Carbon (not sure I used the right Applesy terms). The theme here is to utilize the GPU hardware capabilities. > I am trying, really trying, to get into JavaFX but I just cannot > tolerate it's ugliness. JavaFX has to be the single most unintuitive > language to come out since COBOL. I mean really...can you be serious? That's a first. I've heard people say "I'm not going to learn JavaFX because it will be a waste of my time" or "I've invested ten years in Swing and I'm going to utilize my Swing expertise to the maximum extend." But once I get them to take a peek at JavaFX Script, they usually "get it" within a short time. What are the five top complaints you have against JavaFX Script? > I know that on one of the recent podcasts the posse was in agreement > that JavaFX was going to be the future of desktop Java but I > respectfully disagree. There is just no possible way any sizable > group of critical mass will ever adopt JavaFX. As with any > technology, there will be 'pockets of users' but the whole reason we > came over to Java from C++ was for the elegance and safety of Java. > The write once redevelop everywhere fantasy has been painful for the > past 15 years; Java is just now coming of age where we can actually > write something once and get the rest for free. Why did Sun, now > Oracle, ever let JavaFX out of the lab? Because in their analysis, they can build their next generation of GUI system based on the JavaFX Script language quicker and better than based on Java or Groovy or Scala or some JRuby. This analysis presupposes the need for a new generation of GUI system for Java (or the JVM) world, for reasons not dissimilar from Microsoft's or Apple's for needing a new GUI systems for their respective platforms. > JavaFX will do more harm than good for Java; the most JavaFX will do > is make people consider Flex, and or Silverlight all that much more. That is correct. JavaFX will make people consider Flex more. Silverlight makes people consider Flex more. They are endorsements for the direction that Flex is taking. And they are moving in the same direction. I think that's a wonderful thing. Something similar happened when Microsoft created C#. C# is in a sense an endorsement of Java. I said this before and I'll say it again: Just because Flex is right, doesn't mean JavaFX is wrong. > What's so wrong with Swing anyway, why can't we just rev Swing and > Java3D? Yes we can. But the result will be a newer and better Swing. Not the next generation GUI library. > I can see Groovy (or substitute your favorite JVM language Scala, > Clojure...etc here) breaking out with an elegant/terse wrapper around > the Swing, Java2D, Java3D primitives long...long before JavaFX ever > gets past the demo experiment that it is. Oracle should bury JavaFX > as fast as it can. Let the Groovy, Scala, Clojure GUI builders and libraries flourish. As long as they make developer's life easier, they are serving their constituents. JavaFX is trying to serve it's constituents. Let it also flourish. Of course I can't dictate what Oracle does with JavaFX. I can't even dictate what Sun does with it now. But in my estimate, JavaFX has reached enough people in the last five months that it will be the next hit in the industry. Just like Flex and Silverlight were a few years ago. > That said the JavaFX 'rendering engine' is awesome. Just awesome. If > you haven't yet tried it you are missing something truly great. > Oracle should roll the JavaFX engine into a standard Java7 library. I > think JavaFX is the right idea it just needs (come on guys) a > realistic scripting language behind it. It sounds like you like the idea behind JavaFX, just not the JavaFX Script language. I understand that a language cannot please everyone. So you'll probably end up not doing JavaFX because you don't like the language or doing JavaFX in spite of the bad (for you) language. There are plenty of people who work with a language that they don't like but are forced to use because they want to use the underlying system. Not all Web developers like JavaScript. Not all .NET developers like C# or VB.NET. That's just how the world is. Sometimes you get what you want. Sometimes you don't. > I know I have been hard on JavaFX, I have I hopes for the future of > Java and I strongly believe Java needs something like JavaFX going > forward. Great job to those who worked on JavaFX--as a developer I > know how much work it must have taken--it was a necessary first step > in a much needed direction. We'll see where things will go soon enough. > Overall I give JavaFX a 'B-' > > - > ed -- Weiqi Gao [email protected] http://www.weiqigao.com/blog/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
