Or is this simply a matter of "it's too weird and dissimilar to anything I have background in"?
Be honest -- I don't mean the latter as a slam. For instance, I'll admit that I find Scala far too weird and dissimilar to anything I'm used to. While I like the ideas behind Scala, the actual syntax/grammar is absolutely Martian crossed with Klingon to me (and I'm not a Treky, so I know no Klingon). I swear that Martin made a conscious decision that he didn't want masses from the development mainstream of the past 20 years (who've spent most of this time in C/C++ and Java which all less than coincidentally look like one another) easily hopping into Scala -- the syntax is a designed-in barrier to entry. Granted Scala is a bigger step in many ways and thus requires a larger departure from the familiar, but it is positively as alien as can be while still using English-like keywords and familiar mathematical operators. Joshua Marinacci wrote: > Do you have any specific criticisms about the language? What features > do you find confusing or annoying? We are always looking for ways to > improve it. > > - Josh > > On May 5, 2009, at 6:13 PM, 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. >> >> 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? >> >> 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? >> >> 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. >> >> What's so wrong with Swing anyway, why can't we just rev Swing and >> Java3D? >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Overall I give JavaFX a 'B-' >> >> - >> ed >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
