One thing I noticed with JavaFX was how it seemed to get tied to the netbeans IDE. Has anyone else noticed how the two always seemed to be mentioned together?
(hey, I might even say that Netbeans fans are as vocal as Scala fans, bit I digress) Now... much as I like Netbeans, this kind of lock-in scares me. I'm a bit of an IDE-polyglot at heart. Perhaps JavaFX would be more popular now it it had had wider tool support in the early days, but it's impossible to know. There's no argument that Rich Java Clients are better done at a higher level of abstraction, inside a declarative such as JavaFX. But Reinier hit the nail on the head, who builds Rich Java Clients anymore? (other than IDEs) Perhaps more early popularity for JavaFX may have reversed the trend, that would have been nice to see... On 31 August 2010 06:29, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > Nah. Scala fans are just really, _really_ loud. I'm reminded of what a > friend once told me 3 years ago, when the discussion came up about > what he'd buy for a new notebook. > > "I'd buy a mac, except evidently, if I do, I turn into a jackass". > > I'm not sure if anyone still remembers, or even if this was just an > effect that was local to my social circle, but back then macs weren't > particularly popular, yet, and those who did have them would go on and > on and on about how everyone else was clearly missing out. > > At any rate, one of my let's-not-learn-scala arguments at this point > is that evidently it would turn me into an even bigger jackass :P > > From personal experience on ##java on freenode, where I routinely > advise folks new to swing to switch to either web development > (because, really, what swing GUI can you not at least write as HTML > GUI, and which swing GUIs are even nicer to write as HTML GUI), or to > switch to JavaFX. > > The usual response is half a flamewar from the other old farts, and > generally the newbie just doesn't feel like switching, not > understanding the arguments or engaging in what I believe is > deflecting behaviour (they don't want to go to JavaFX for some unknown > reason, probably even unknown to themselves, but because the mind > hates to be seen as being a slave to whims, it makes up an irrelevant > reason for its opinion - in the case of JavaFX, usually some spiel > about it not being 'proven' yet, or 'too new'). I find this a real > shame, as JavaFX is IMO vastly simpler to learn and work with than > swing, and the end result is far more flexible. However, JavaFX's > problem definitely does not appear to be a technical one, but a > marketing one. Parroting Joe's as far as I can tell correct statement > that it doesn't look like Snoracle is going to pour many resources > into swing from this point sometimes helps, but more often than not, > it doesn't. > > FWIW, I don't think JavaFX is relevant either. The world is moving to > either (A) the web, i.e. vanilla HTML5, which is guaranteed to run > everywhere, or (B) to an extremely local app, i.e. an app developed > for a very specific platform, such as an iPhone app. JavaFX is good in > neither. > > There's certainly a niche in the internal usage at big corporations > market, but I don't care too much about it. Still, there's quite a > steep "But I didn't get to get wined and dined by some sales man, so > it must suck" gradient to fight against in that regard. Maybe if > Oracle starts peddling it with the rest of their business offerings, > it can make an inroad there, but right now Oracle is not in the best > of positions to start expanding in that area due to the lawsuit. > > A real shame if JavaFX would remain stuck where it is. If one must > make a GUI built on top of a cross-platform VM, in my opinion JavaFX > is clearly by miles the best technology to do this in. > > On Aug 31, 3:45 am, JamesJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > I find it amazing that any email comparing Java to Scala erupts with > > comments, while there has been a positive dearth of opinions and > discussion > > on JavaFX. I am tempted to conclude that Scala is indeed a very > important > > movement, judging on the spectrum and intensity of the discussion pro and > > con. I really haven't seen anything even close for JavaFX. In one of > the > > last podcasts I think I heard Joe say something about preferring JavaFX > for > > some problem domains, and how Java Swing's days are numbered. This did > not > > draw even a whisper of a comment from the list. > > > > Is JavaFX so young that no one is actually using it? Anyone love it or > hate > > it? Anyone? > > > > I have used it a bit. I love the concept, but hate the rough edges. My > > pet peeve has to be the lack of support for annotations and generics. > The > > story around JavaFX is always that you can leverage all of the Java libs. > > How many modern libs don't use annotations or generics in the interface? > > -- > 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright mail/google talk: [email protected] wave: [email protected] skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
