But doesn't it work fine on both platforms except for some video codecs, etc?
That says nothing about the overall technology set but rather about the lack of portability of a handful of bits. Paul Hardin wrote: > As a Java developer it does strike me that there is something deeply > wrong with JavaFX if, 5 months after release to production, and, after > releasing a second revision, the development team is unable to make it > work on Linux and OpenSolaris. > > Right or wrong, it makes Ed's comments about finding it to be > difficult to use resonate. I am thinking, "Why is this architecture so > difficult to make work on open systems?" > > There is also the, seemingly, somewhat derisive and sneering chorus > of, "Oh, come on, just rip open the release for XYZ platform, tape the > pieces back together in a semi-functional manner, on your open system, > and quit whining", from some quarters and the loud cricket noises from > Sun and the development team regarding JDK releases on open > platforms. > > Add all this together and I am just failing to find a lot of > enthusiasm for JavaFX. Sadly, this has little or nothing to do with > the relative technical merits of JavaFX itself. > > Paul > > On May 6, 10:46 am, kirk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Joshua Marinacci wrote: >> >>> You can join apple's free developer program to get the latest releases >>> of Java. They recently posted a developer preview of something more >>> recent than update 7. >>> >> _13 and it works very well >> >> Kirk >> >> >>> On May 6, 2009, at 7:45 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: >>> >>>> Summary of OP: >>>> >>>> I looked at it, it sucked. I won't tell you why; instead I'll just >>>> whinge, because I'm a non-contributing zero. >>>> >>>> Ed, post some constructive criticism, or go away. >>>> >>>> NB: Michael, Gladwell is a gifted author, a real yarnspinner, but you >>>> shouldn't quote him with the presumption that his delusional ranting >>>> has any basis in fact, at least, not in polite company. However, in >>>> the vein of completing the argument in a proposed faulty logic frame >>>> being just as effective as proving the logic is false in the first >>>> place: People who have actually used JavaFX almost never complain. If >>>> you follow the posse, or read anything about java at all, you'd know >>>> that the update to get is 6u10, which you didn't have. No wonder stuff >>>> isn't working quite as well as it should; the fact that it does work >>>> in the first place is a small miracle. >>>> >>>> Joshua, do you know when apple will roll out something with the >>>> flavour of 6u10 across all macs? My mac is still on 1.6.0_07-b06-153. >>>> Could be because I've been downloading releases from >>>> developer.apple.com. >>>> >>>> On May 6, 3:13 am, Ed <[email protected]> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
