Thank you. Though you say it's subjective your criticisms are
concrete. Streaming video is choppy, the browser integration isn't
great, and you get certificate dialogs (though the JavaFX runtime is
signed by a trusted root cert, you still get the dialog on Mac). These
are all things we are aware of and are fixing.
Thanks,
Josh
On May 6, 2009, at 5:57 AM, Michael Kimsal wrote:
> Did anyone hear read 'blink' by Malcolm Gladwell? The crux of the
> book is
> that there are a number of 'snap decision' or 'gut reactions' people
> have, can't
> explain why, but are nonetheless born out as correct predictions/
> assessments.
> I'm reminded of that in the JavaFX discussion.
>
> JavaFX can tick off all the right checkboxes with respect to
> technology,
> and has groups of people saying all the right stuff, yet a number of
> people
> (and I largely fall in this camp myself) are still saying 'no'. Or
> 'ick'. Or 'wtf?'.
>
> People asking for followups about "what specifically is wrong? we
> can't
> fix anything without specifics" are, in our camp's view, somewhat
> barking
> up the wrong tree. You can't "fix" it because the whole thing is
> 'wrong'.
> Yes, subjective terms, I know. Tweaking it with some functionality
> enhancements or adding some new feature really isn't going to change
> people's minds too much, at least in the short term.
>
> Not sure what else is going on with other languages, but the Griffon
> team has done a great job in building an environment for doing
> Swing app development with Groovy.
>
> I went to revisit the demo page for javafx just now. Why aren't the
> security
> certificates signed with a trusted root certificate?
>
> Not sure what the OP meant by 'ugly' but I'll throw out that just
> trying to watch the streaming video demo was painful. Video
> disappeared when I scrolled. Playback was choppy. Video quality
> was OK, but not quite as sharp as I remember silverlight or flex
> video playback being. I may be misremembering here, and I know that
> flash/flex can have some truly awful video as well - it's not
> perfect. Perhaps I'm not using the latest and greatest Java?
>
> java version "1.6.0_07"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_07-b06-153)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.6.0_07-b06-57, mixed mode)
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Neil Bartlett <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> I don't see any actual arguments here about what is wrong with JavaFX.
>
> Actually it seems to be the JavaFX Script language that you have a
> problem with, not the platform or libraries etc. So, aside from "ugly"
> and "unintuitive" (which are highly subjective), why exactly do you
> think there is "just no possible way any sizable (sic) group of
> critical mass will ever adopt JavaFX"? Isn't that what they said about
> Java? And Ruby, and Python, and...
>
>
> --
> Michael Kimsal
> http://jsmag.com - for javascript developers
> http://groovymag.com - for groovy developers
> 919.827.4724
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
