GUI builders are great for prototyping or helping you learn. But when the application gets complex I keep hearing developers throw them out. They start getting in the way.
I think if you have a good API and a good declarative UI language, think QML not FXML, then you may find you don¹t really need a GUI builder. How may people are using GUI builders to create Web app UI¹s? Now web UIs are simpler, but maybe that¹s the point. And why not leave GUI builders to the tools vendors. They¹re hard to make and get right, especially of you don¹t have a revenue model to support the army of developers you need. Doug. Hmm, I wonder what React Native would look like with JavaFX and NashornŠ On 2015-03-05, 7:20 AM, "Scott Palmer" <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote: >I would never consider for a second coding FXML "directly". I have only >tweaked it by hand occasionally after creating it with SceneBuilder. SB >is an important selling point for JavaFX and should be included in the >JDK, it shouldn't even be a separate download. > >Scott > >> On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Tom Eugelink <t...@tbee.org> wrote: >> >> My two cents would be that maintaining a UI builder is an awful lot of >>work, while I expect that a lot of programmers won't be using SB because >>it always has limitations. Either with complex layouts or custom >>controls. "Real" programmers probably use FXML directly or even just >>code it in Java. So the "return on investment" probably is fairly low >>and thus the resources can be much better spent on the core. IMHO. >> >> >>> On 5-3-2015 02:34, Mike Hearn wrote: >>> I agree that SB is probably something that can be well maintained by >>>the >>> community at this point, especially with commercial backing from Gluon >>
